Disney Remade ‘Lilo & Stitch’ Without ‘Ohana.’ Here’s Why Everyone’s Mad.

Kids who came of age in the early aughts know that ohana means family. And family means nobody is left behind.

Disney’s 2002 animated film “Lilo & Stitch” tells the story of a young Hawaiian girl named Lilo, who lives with her older sister, Nani, after their parents passed away. As Nani struggles to keep Lilo out of the foster system, they adopt what they think is a dog, but it is actually a mischievous, loving alien named Stitch. Together, they defy those trying to tear them apart, proving that “ohana means family, and family means no one gets left behind or forgotten.”

The movie was a smash, which in Disney terms means it was a prime target for a live-action remake. And unlike Disney’s disastrous attempt to revive “Snow White,” the new “Lilo & Stitch” has been a smash, raking in over $600 million to date.

But that doesn’t mean “Lilo & Stitch” is free from drama. The remake has Nani giving Lilo up to a neighbor so she can chase a college scholarship in San Diego, radically rejecting traditional family values in favor of personal ambition. What was once a story about resilience, dedication, and familial loyalty becomes just another justification for the pursuit of self-fulfillment.

It’s an odd choice, particularly considering that no one seemed to have a problem with the original. And unlike “Snow White,” the “Lilo and Stitch” remake has garnered criticisms from both sides of the aisle: conservatives say the new ending is yet another instance of Disney trampling on family values, while leftists say the film is “sanitizing the critique of American colonialism [through] organisations like CPS.”

So, why would Disney rejigger a classic in a way guaranteed to make everyone mad? One former Disney employee told The Daily Wire it likely has to do with a change in how the studio approaches moviemaking.

She said that when she began at the company, “the best business model at these big entertainment companies, especially with the children, teen, and family programming was to value the consumer and the majority of the time that means valuing their children and their families.”

But then, around 2020, she felt an “abrupt shift.”

“It didn’t really matter what the audience was telling us they wanted to see,” she explained. “It felt like the networks and producers were making agenda-driven decisions.”

The former Disney staffer added that while most of the audience consisted of “flyover state” moviegoers, the decision makers decided that they wanted to “educate” the audience and direct them on “the standard of how to act.”

“So I can see a creative meeting at Disney go something like: ‘How do we update ‘Lilo & Stitch’ to feel like it fits our world today?’ And the general sentiment would be that it’s not modern for a woman to forgo her dreams and stay home to take care of a loved one. In order to help her family, she needs to help herself.”

A quick glance at social media shows that this was a miscalculation.

“Remember in #LiloandStitch where Nani cared for Lilo very much and used every strength of her being to protect her and did anything keep her happy? Yeah in the live action remake she just leaves for college and the neighbors take Lilo in,” one commenter wrote.

Remember in #LiloandStitch where Nani cared for Lilo very much and used every strength of her being to protect her and did anything keep her happy?

Yeah in the live action remake she just leaves for college and the neighbors take Lilo in pic.twitter.com/J8ibGbgnLB

— ChelseatheCartoonGal (@CartoonGal1) May 23, 2025

Another person agreed, writing, “Read the synopsis of the live action Lilo & Stitch movie and bruh at least on paper it’s like they took the theme of the original and went ‘ok but what if we did the opposite of that.’”

One viral X comment with 13 million views from Matthew Chapman, a reporter for Raw Story, called out Disney for making the change.

(Warning: spoilers ahead.)

Chapman railed about how Disney “mutilated” the original message of the movie in a series of X posts. “If you liked the original, the ending of this movie completely destroys it. I am doing a public service by spoiling it for you,” he wrote.

“So, if you remember, the original movie, without ever talking about this directly, dropped VERY clever, subtle visual hints about just how much of Nani’s life she had to throw away to take care of her sister after their parents died. All the surfing trophies in her room etc,” his post read.

“Well, the remake is much more explicit and sets up this B-plot about Nani wanting to go to U.C. San Diego and become a marine biologist. And at the end, she just…gives custody of Lilo to David’s grandma and goes to college.”

“What the hell was this whole movie about then? What was the point of the sisters desperately trying to get social services to let them stay together?” he rages. “There were retroactively no stakes in this movie. No conflict. Who cares?”

“I’ve touched on this before, but my LEAST favorite modern Disney trope is when they end the movie by letting a main character just ‘go off and be free,’ and then sweep under the rug how many people and responsibilities they are leaving behind by doing that.”

“The original movie is about a broken family trying to heal, and put their love and support for each other over anything else. Apparently not anymore, now it’s about Nani just lifting the burden of Lilo off her shoulders and finding a way to put herself first,” Chapman wrote.

It’s not just conservatives questioning the new ending. Even leftist publications like The Daily Beast reacted negatively to the change. The writer called the bond between the sisters the “emotional core” of the story and highlighted all the negative reactions to Nani’s abrupt departure.

For many viewers, this rewrite isn’t just disingenuous; it’s culturally corrosive. It’s not a matter of just trading one touching tale for another — it’s a surrendering of virtues such as self‑denial, responsibility, and the importance of family.