The Controversial Ending Of Disney's New ‘Lilo & Stitch,' Explained
Disney's live-action remake of 'Lilo & Stitch'
Viewers have something of a love-hate relationship with Disney's slate of live-action remakes, which are often criticized for failing to live up to the original animated films, yet sometimes proving very popular at the box office.
The original Lilo & Stitch was a modest success, grossing $273 million worldwide, but fans look back on the film fondly—it's beautifully animated, boasts unique character design, a good sense of humor, and depicts Hawaii as a lush, colorful paradise.
While the new Lilo & Stitch has already overtaken the original film at the box office, commentators have pointed out that the live-action remake doesn't capture the beauty and heart of the animated film.
Plus, a significant change made to the ending of the film has sparked backlash and controversy on social media.
Lilo & Stitch depicts Lilo and her sister Nani in a difficult, but very loving relationship—the two are orphaned and Nani is tasked with taking care of her little sister.
Nani is the only one who understands Lilo's eccentricity, but Nani is overstretched and struggles to care for her little sister, resulting in the state threatening to take Lilo away from Nani.
Of course, the sister's lives face greater disruption when the alien Stitch enters their lives disguised as a dog, sabotaging Nani's desperate attempts to get her life in order.
The story emphasizes the importance of 'Ohana,' meaning family that binds beyond traditional blood ties.
The original animated film grants Lilo's family a happy-ever-after, ending with Nani, Lilo and Stitch finding peace together, bolstered by a new support system of aliens and humans.
The live-action remake, however, has a different interpretation of Ohana.
Spoilers Ahead
In the live-action remake of Lilo & Stitch, Nani (Sydney Agudong) and Lilo (Maia Kealoha) are in the exact same situation, but the film ends with the state taking Lilo away from her big sister.
Fans of the original film were quite shocked to see the change.
For context, this change is presented as an unambiguously happy ending for Nani, as a new character is introduced, Tūtū (Amy Hill), a grandmotherly neighbour who adopts Lilo.
This ensures that Nani can still see Lilo regularly and remain close, but also gives her the freedom to leave for college in California to study marine biology.
However, fans pointed out that there was something dark about Nani's future career being placed above her care of Lilo, a strangely cold ending with a glossy, 'girlboss' spin.
Lilo hasn't gone away, exactly, but the two no longer live together, and Nani is no longer taking care of her sister.
Given that the original film (and the remake) very much emphasizes the importance of keeping families together with the phrase 'no one gets left behind,' this struck many viewers as a cold attempt at a happy ending.
Indeed, given the terrible history of indigenous children being torn away from their families, many pointed out that the creative choice came across as wildly insensitive. The outcry was so strong, it even inspired satirical fan art.
Others wondered why Nani couldn't simply study marine biology in Hawaii.
Some speculated that the change was made to give the film a newfound sense of realism.
Whatever the reasoning behind the change, the result is that the theme of the story shifts to a more individualistic message.
During the ending of the live-action Lilo & Stitch, the phrase 'nobody gets left behind' is countered by Tūtū, who tells Nani, 'don't leave yourself behind.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
15 minutes ago
- Fox News
Rep. Alford to introduce congressional stock trading ban mirroring Senate's 'PELOSI Act'
FIRST ON FOX: Rep. Mark Alford, R-Mo., on Wednesday will introduce legislation that would ban congressional stock trading, serving as the House companion bill to Sen. Josh Hawley's, R-Mo., "PELOSI Act" in the Senate. Alford's proposed bill would ban lawmakers and their spouses from holding, purchasing or selling individual stocks while in office, but it allows investments in diversified mutual funds, exchange-traded funds or U.S. Treasury bonds. If passed, current lawmakers would have 180 days to comply with the legislation. Likewise, newly elected lawmakers must achieve compliance within 180 days of entering office. "As public servants, we should hold ourselves to a higher standard and avoid the mere appearance of corruption," Alford said in a statement. "Unfortunately, too many members of Congress are engaging in suspicious stock trades based on non-public information to enrich themselves." "These gross violations of the public trust make clear: we must finally take action to ban members and their spouses from owning or selling individual stocks," he added. Under the proposed legislation, lawmakers who continue to make wrongful transactions would be required to hand over any profits they made to the U.S. Treasury Department. The House or Senate ethics committees could also impose a fine on such lawmakers amounting to 10% of each wrongful transaction. House Speaker Mike Johnson endorsed a stock trading ban on Wednesday, saying "a few bad actors" have ruined Americans' trust in lawmakers on the issue. "You want me to tell you my honest opinion on that? I'm in favor of that, because I don't think we should have any appearance of impropriety here," he told reporters during a press conference. President Donald Trump himself endorsed the same ban for members of Congress in an interview with Time magazine last month. "I watched Nancy Pelosi get rich through insider information, and I would be okay with it. If they send that to me, I would do it," he said of a trading ban. "You'll sign it?" the reporter pressed. "Absolutely," Trump responded. Democrats in the House of Representatives have also expressed support for a ban, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., throwing his weight behind the proposal last week.
CBS News
16 minutes ago
- CBS News
Tarrant County citizens file lawsuit against new redistricting map
Less than a day after Tarrant County commissioners approved a controversial redistricting proposal, a group of citizens filed a lawsuit claiming intentional discrimination. According to the Lone Star Project, the lawsuit claims that Tarrant County Judge Tim O'Hare and his followers engaged in intentional racial discrimination in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution by drawing the new district lines. "Intentional discrimination is still against the law," said lead legal counsel for the citizen plaintiffs, Chad Dunn. "The map they drew, the process they used to draw it, and the animosity shown to the citizens of Tarrant County violate the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution." Hundreds of residents speak out for, against the redistricting More than 200 people spoke out about redrawing boundary lines during public comment Tuesday night. The majority who spoke were against redistricting, including the mayors of Arlington, Mansfield and Forest Hills. There were still several speakers who expressed their support. Several used the phrase "don't Dallas my Tarrant." Tarrant County "I want to say that I fully support deterring redistricting efforts. These lines haven't been updated since 2010," said Carlos Turcios, the community development committee chairman for the Tarrant Republican Party. Commissioners moved into executive session around 3 p.m. on Tuesday after some tense moments between the two Democrats and the three Republicans. As Commissioner Alisa Simmons expressed all the reasons she is against redistricting, Judge Tim O'Hare abruptly moved to executive session in an effort to limit her comments. O'Hare is spearheading this process and has been clear that it's about partisan politics. He wants another Republican seat on the court to ensure conservative leadership for the next decade. "It's a very divided country and the parties, I'm not sure, have never been further apart in their beliefs," O'Hare said. "I don't apologize for being a Republican. I don't apologize for being a conservative." "It's not partisan. It is racism." Critics believe the redistricting is racial gerrymandering, saying it goes beyond partisan politics and say it dilutes the voting power of minorities. "Absolutely, it's not partisan. It is racism," Simmons said during the meeting. The new map does appear to take areas with high Black and brown populations from precinct two and put them in precinct one. SMU political science professor Calvin Jillson said what the court did is not unusual, but the legality of the new lines comes down to intentions. "Oh, this absolutely gerrymandering – it is the redrawing of electoral boundaries for partisan purposes," Jillson said. "The question is whether the purposes behind the redrawing were actually political, in which case gerrymandering is legal, or racial discrimination, in which case it would not be legal." Check out more on the CBS News Texas YouTube page: contributed to this report.
Bloomberg
17 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
US Economic Data Showing Slowdown; Trump Reshapes DEI
"Bloomberg Markets" follows the market moves across every global asset class and discusses the biggest issues for Wall Street. On the show today, Tidalwave Solutions Senior Partner Cameron Johnson, Waystar Technologies CEO Matthew Hawkins, The Verna Myers Company Diversity Pioneer Vernā Myers. (Source: Bloomberg)
