HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON and the Rise of the Copy-and-Paste Remake

Remakes are a dime-a-dozen, and now, sadly, so are the copy-and-paste ones. That’s right, the technique that got Gus Van Sant‘s Psycho derided as a cheap ripoff of the original classic now has proven to be big bucks for carbon copies of hit kids’ films, especially for The Walt Disney Company. The Lion King, Aladdin, and Lilo & Stitch have proven that studios don’t have to do anything new or creative. They don’t even have to reflect an understanding of what made the originals so powerful. They just have to remind people of the thing they already love by doing the exact same thing. With the upcoming release of DreamWorks’ How to Train Your Dragon live-action copy-and-paste remake, I thought I’d take a look at why this has become such a profitable phenomenon. Spoiler warning for all of these films.

A Brief History: The Recycling of Life

I’ll start with the most egregious example. The Lion King was the first remake of a children’s movie to literally duplicate the original, down to the very last line and the timing of when the shots cut. It also promoted itself based on that trait. Both the trailer and the TV ads compared it to the hand-drawn version, side-by-side. Hans Zimmer, the Oscar-winning composer for the first one, came back and essentially composed a soft repeat of his past work, this time with the help of Pharrell Williams. The exact same songs by Sir Elton John and Tim Rice are utilized, with no new lyrics or songs added, save for a Beyoncé song in the end credits. I couldn’t believe what I was seeing.

What makes it even worse is that the picture made $1,662,020,819 globally. That’s way more than the 1994 version’s $979,161,373 worldwide gross. While many now don’t talk about the movie unless derisively, back then people made it abundantly clear: Audiences LOVED that this version did almost nothing different, and it boasts an 88% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes.

Another Arabian Night

The same year that The Lion King won fans over with its rinse-and-repeat storytelling, British writer-director Guy Ritchie took a stab at remaking Aladdin, resulting in another soulless cash-grab for Disney. But while it wasn’t a literal shot-for-shot copy like the former, it still largely presents the same story minus the personality.

You have Will Smith’s CG Genie, a performance that basically copies Robin Williams’ comedic shtick. You’ve got camerawork and editing that gloss over important details because you already remember them from the original, along with a weirdly sped-up frame rate that tries make up for the film’s lack of any real energy. Even the villain, Jafar (played here by Marwan Kenzari), is so wooden that paint drying would’ve seemed more intimidating. When the film does copy moments line-for-line, they’re delivered with such lifelessness that they give the CG Mufasa a run for his money.

Any changes Ritchie and company added impact the story not one iota. There’s a new subplot about a rising war with another nation that never comes to fruition. There’s an extra song added for Jasmine that, while nicely sung, takes place entirely in her mind and grinds the pace to a halt. Not to mention that half the singing is auto-tuned, which lends a robotic feeling to the musical numbers. The best things the movie has going for it are a visually dazzling new rendition of “Friend Like Me” and a genuinely engaged performance from Naomi Scott as Jasmine.

Nonetheless, the film raked in $1,050,693,953 globally, compared to the $504,050,219 gross of the 1992 classic. In addition, it earned a whopping 94% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes, with user reviews ranging from “One of the best live-action remakes I’ve ever seen” to “Loved it better than the animated film.” But why?

More Ohana

Now we get to the most recent of Disney’s live-action regurgitations. 2025’s Lilo & Stitch does make some changes in retelling its beloved source material. Writers Chris Kekaniokalani Bright and Mike Van Waes added a “nicer” social worker played by Tia Carrere, removed Captain Gantu, and removed Pleakley in drag (which was likely to avoid conservative backlash). Most crucially, the film ends with Social Services taking Lilo (Maia Keahola) away from Nani (Sydney Agudong), which a) leaves her older sister able to attend college and study marine biology, and b) leads to Lilo being adopted by a neighbor named Tutu (Amy Hill).

Aside from that, the film nevertheless tells the same story, with many jokes and iconic scenes recycled, even bringing back Chris Sanders to voice Stitch. People have once again came out in droves for this cynical exercise in sentimentality, with the film on track for a billion-dollar gross. On top of that, viewers have given the movie a 93% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. Thoughts range from “Very cute movie. Well worth the watch” to “Brought some of the original actors which was cool but doesn’t hit the same as the animated.” The vast majority of Rotten Tomatoes users seem to have no problem with paying money to see another largely similar remake.

So It’s Come to This…

Now we get to the newest live-action rehash. Dean DeBlois, co-director of the 2010 masterpiece “How to Train Your Dragon,” came back to helm this reimagining that, much like The Lion King, is proudly advertising itself as being just like the first, but filmed in live-action. Already, the professional reactions alone are proving that apparently, if it ain’t broke, fix it. Edward Douglas gave the film a 7/10 and wrote for The Weekend Warrior Newsletter, “Looks fantastic and offers some of the same emotions as the original animated film, but it also feels so redundant and unnecessary that it’s hard to get fully behind it.” The cognitive dissonance in that statement is ear-piercing. Leo Brady of AMovieGuy.com wrote a more middling 2.5/5 star review, saying, “The live-action version is perfectly serviceable. And maybe that’s the best we can hope for.” Not exactly the most ringing endorsement.

Why Is the Copy-and-Paste Remake So Popular?

I think the answer to why these copy-and-paste remakes are so popular is crystal clear: Childhood nostalgia is a heck of a drug. Whereas a movie like Van Sant‘s Psycho will always be remembered as that trash remake of a horror classic, it’s also a remake of an R-rated film for adults. It’s not something people grew up with as kids. But when it comes to Cinderella, The Lion King, Aladdin, Alice in Wonderland, or Beauty and the Beast, people grew up loving those. So many iconic moments, lovable characters, beautiful themes and storytelling.

On top of the sentimental value, it can make the viewers, especially kids, feel like they’re watching something a little more grown-up (I remember getting that feeling with live-action blockbusters like Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Dark Knight as a child). I’ll even go as far as to say that there can be potential in bringing an animated story like How to Train Your Dragon into the live-action realm. But when such renditions don’t decide they need to do anything new, all they create is a half-hearted regurgitation of that feeling you got viewing the classics. I also feel like the average moviegoer’s thought process behind their taste for that sameness has about the same level of understanding as people who argue for the colorized versions of black-and-white classics (e.g. It’s a Wonderful Life).

Conclusion

With the live-action How to Train Your Dragon now in theaters, and word-of-mouth from both critics and general audiences praising its lack of difference from the first, I want to make a plea. Don’t you ever want something different for a change? Don’t you want a retelling that puts a new spin on the material, as opposed to these soulless replications? And don’t even get me started on the deeper motives for these movies getting made in the first place. Executives at companies like Universal and Disney do not care about bringing you a beautiful experience. They are hell-bent on milking your nostalgia for all it’s worth. They’re aware of the flaws that exist therein. They know that all these movies really do is remind people of the original’s quality. It’s the ultimate con, where the marks are perfectly aware of and content that they’re being played. Please take a stand and let these companies know that you will not just accept being fed the same thing over and over. Or at the very least, just watch the older version.