Lilo and Stitch: Changed For the Better or For the Worse?

The current landscape of filmmaking is filled to the brim with live-action remakes. Walt Disney Pictures is no stranger to these films—they’ve released 24 of these remakes in the past 30 years, all of them paling in comparison to their animated counterparts. Disney’s most recent live-action installment is Lilo and Stitch (2025), which comes right after Snow White (2025). The original Lilo and Stitch (2002) is beloved by countless fans; it’s both emotional and funny, yet there’s no tonal whiplash. The overarching theme is “ohana means family,” as emphasized by the relationship between Lilo and Nani. However, while maintaining some of its original charm, the live-action remake presents various unnecessary changes, weakening the film and proving just how unnecessary its creation was. 

This remake’s plot is similar to that of the original Lilo and Stitch. Dr. Jumba Jookiba (Zach Galifianakis) is convicted by the United Galactic Federation (UGF) for creating Experiment 626 (Chris Sanders). However, when 626 steals a space-police cruiser and drives it to Earth, the Grand Councilwoman (Hanna Waddingham) sends Jumba to Earth with “Earth expert” Agent Pleakley (Billy Magnussen) so that they can recapture the escapee. Eventually, Lilo (Maia Kealoha), a lonely Hawaiian girl, finds 626 and names him Stitch. Lilo’s older sister and guardian, Nani (Sydney Agudong), is hesitant to allow Lilo to keep him. However, Stitch eventually develops a strong bond with the sisters amidst the hijinks that ensue. 

Although the plot of this movie is so similar to the plot of the old one, it contains some changes. One of the most notable changes is the removal of Gantu, who served on the UGF’s police force in the original movie, making him the primary antagonist. Instead, in a bit of a twist, Jumba assumes a more villainous role. Disney already has a myriad of twist villains under their belt, and there was no good reason for them to mold Jumba into a cliché like this. The twist also doesn’t make sense because, in the original, Jumba  became a lovable fan favorite who acted as Lilo and Stitch’s uncle figure of sorts. The drastic change in his personality is off-putting and unfamiliar. 

Another change is that in this rendition, Nani wants to study marine biology at the University of California, San Diego, but she’s conflicted; she would have to leave Lilo to study there. In the original, Nani does everything she can to stay with Lilo—a crucial aspect of the film. Their relationship is the basis of ohana, which is why it’s out of character for Nani to give Lilo up to the state, leaving her in foster care. This action is deemed both necessary and “the right thing to do;” Disney essentially depicts the foster care system and social workers as unproblematic, contradicting the real-life experiences of indigenous communities and families. Oftentimes, these communities are forcefully separated by the U.S. government into a neglectful foster care system. Thus, Disney’s messaging is out of touch and comes across as insensitive to all the families who are separated not by choice, but by force. This message is especially ironic because the movie’s key theme is that “ohana means family, and family means no one gets left behind or forgotten.” This is quite literally what happens to Lilo, since Nani leaves her in Hawaii.The change in motive also doesn’t make sense because Hawaii is known for having extremely prestigious marine biology programs, so it would have made more sense for Nani to get her education in Hawaii, where she could still be close to her beloved sister. It’s important to represent a woman going to college and receiving an education, but in this scenario, it comes with questionable implications. 

Yet another change in this movie is that Jumba and Pleakley receive human disguises, which they obtain by wearing devices that allow them to steal the bodies of humans to shapeshift, rather than dressing as humans, removing the original cartoon’s humor. The aliens believing that human clothes would disguise them enough would have been more amusing than having two completely normal-looking men carrying out the mission they were sent to do. More off-putting, however, is that Pleakley no longer dresses in drag. It was funny and original, especially for a movie released in the early 2000s when drag wasn’t well appreciated or accepted. The director of the live-action Lilo and Stitch Dean Fleischer Camp reportedly wanted Pleakley to dress in drag, but that idea was rejected by the higher-ups at Disney. Despite Disney’s recent attempts at representation in media, they seem to have taken a cowardly step back in this case. 

The CGI in this movie is not bad, but is lacking in certain characters. For instance, Stitch’s CGI effectively portrays him as his rambunctiously-adorable, alien-dog-creature self. He’s expressive—maybe not as expressive as he was in the original, but still more expressive and animated than most of the CGI characters in other Disney’s movies such as The Lion King (2019), a remake that turned the previously lively lions into emotionless animals straight out of a National Geographic documentary—which is definitely an improvement. The CGI on the Grand Councilwoman is also executed well; she maintains an intimidating yet regal appearance. Her design looks like it was pulled straight out of the original movie, but now with more texture and uniqueness. However, the same cannot be said about Jumba and Pleakley. Jumba looks slightly off; he was purple and pink in the original, making him look lively and vibrant, but now, he’s dull and…disturbingly hairy (this makes him look, as Lilo puts it, like a “hairy potato”). Pleakley just looks terrifying. There’s no soul or emotion behind his gigantic, uncomfortably human eye. Disney could have used the same eyes they used for Jumba, with smaller pupils and a more cartoony look, but chose not to. To worsen matters, Pleakley also looks extremely slimy.

While this movie is still just as charming as the original, it’s clear that it would benefit from maintaining the original plot. One thing that makes it charming is how Nani and Lilo’s relationship is more fleshed out, and Stitch’s antics are focused on a bit less. This gives the movie more sentimental moments so that it’s not overwhelmed with comedy, which suits the story. However, whether it’s the motives of each character or their personalities, the changes are odd and don’t benefit the film. If Disney wants to make strong movies, it needs to stop making live-action remakes, because Lilo and Stitch most certainly did not benefit from being remade.