Catherine Laga’aia stars as the title character in “Moana.” (photo courtesy of Disney Pictures)

The live-action “Moana” is DOA for critics and filmgoers alike. During its opening weekend, it earned a measly $43 million domestically (add another $52M internationally) on a $250 million budget. That’s 2025’s “Snow White” bad.

That film monetarily disrupted plans for this entire subgenre. Then “Lilo and Stitch” convinced Disney execs that this goose could pop out a few more golden eggs before it went belly up. Add to that, the animated “Moana 2” surpassed the billion mark as well. Folks clearly want more from this world.

Director Thomas Kail (2020’s “Hamilton”) gave us a shot-for-shot remake with Dwayne Johnson reprising his voice role as Maui, the trickster demigod who steals the heart of Te Fiti. And it premiered to no competition during the summer. Should’ve been an easy choice for families trying to escape the rising heat. So why did it flop so quickly?

You’ll hear plenty of folks bemoan live-action remakes and declare we need better stories. Both are right, but general audiences don’t tend to care about the former, and opening weekends arrive before the latter. We don’t know if these films will land or not. That’s what the second weekend is for: word-of-mouth.

Regardless of “Moana’s” failure to launch, live-action remakes won’t die. But it very well might serve as an important moment for Disney to figure out the best formula for this frustrating subgenre that refuses to die. To understand the current dilemma, a little background.

Blame Tim Burton for everything. Prior to 2010’s “Alice in Wonderland,” three films fit the remake criteria: a 1994 “Jungle Book” and a couple “Dalmatian” flicks featuring Glenn Close as Cruella de Vil. Then Burton released the top-grossing film of his career. Not bad for a film that evenly split the critics. The plan was simple: a modern twist on classic stories. Next, “Maleficent” fit perfectly, performing well despite critical revilement. Slowly, that modern twist idea would become a point of contention.

“Cinderella” and “The Jungle Book” boasted strong numbers and equally impressive reactions from film’s picky gatekeepers.

Why does Disney keep doing this? That’s simple. Five surpassed $1 billion (“Jungle Book” is almost the sixth), critically panned “The Lion King” reached $1.6 billion, while most of the others ranged quite well.

From 2017 to 2019, the remakes peaked with “Beauty and the Beast,” “Aladdin” and “The Lion King” all surpassing $1 billion. Some midrange options appeared along the way, like “Wonderland” and “Maleficent” sequels, but nothing to knock the whole endeavor off course.

And despite critical misgivings for most of these films, they even earned some accolades along the way. Across 13 films that premiered in theaters, they earned 13 Oscar nominations, four of which resulted in wins. That’s the same number of wins as the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s 37 films.

Of the 12 live-action remakes that received full box office runs (excluding “Mulan” because of Covid), the global box office average is around $800 million. But as any seasoned gambler knows, you must know when to quit. So plans for a “Hercules” remake stalled while others might move forward. Bigwigs are holding meetings now to diagnose the problem. Hopefully, nobody in those meetings ends a pitch with “it’ll be the next popcorn bucket.”

No easy answer exists. Public and critical reception doesn’t easily align. Three of the five billion-dollar films earned Rotten Tomatoes scores around 50%, though “The Jungle Book’s” 94% score alongside its near-billion earnings should be studied.

Frankly, the most refreshing remake – the most memorable and emotional one – is on the bottom end: “Pete’s Dragon.” But that’s a cheat. An entirely different generation experienced that one, and it never had the staying power of other Disney classics. This afforded the director creative freedom, but it also meant a built-in audience wasn’t there to help fill seats. What is more creative and inventive doesn’t always win wide audiences.

The only clues about “Moana’s” demise circle a few things. First, Johnson’s wig didn’t help. Second, it looked perhaps too similar to the original. Third, looking similar is a major problem when you switch from animation to live action, relying on excessive graphics that have trouble blending real sets with CGI.

More challenging, this “Moana” disrupted the natural order. A third animated film is on the way, meaning we start over in live action while we await the third chapter in the original format. For all other remakes, the space between animated original and remake averages more than 40 years. The 10 years between “Moanas” doesn’t feel like enough. We finally received a sequel two years ago and now we’re already in nostalgia territory that warrants a live-action homage?

Until Disney figures out the best path for these remakes – because stopping ain’t gonna happen – we’ll have to accept that more than one person thought Dwayne Johnson’s wig was a good idea, not a sign that this live-action reprisal might be an uphill battle. At least we have “Cinderella.”

Dwayne Johnson reprises his role as the demigod Maui in the live-action remake of “Moana.” (photo courtesy of Disney Pictures)