One of the most unfortunate trends of artistic success in the modern era is that the immediate response to create something extremely acclaimed and adored by the public is to attempt to capitalize on its popularity, under the mistaken assumption that audiences will likely be just as invested in revisiting these properties on future occasions, even if they’re not very good or pale in comparison to their source material. One of the most notorious suspects when it comes to the tacky art of sequels and remakes is The Walt Disney Company, who have been crafting follow-up films to some of their most cherished works for decades, but very rarely doing so in a way that feels natural or pays sufficient tribute to the originals. However, it was mostly negligible and easy to overlook these more lacklustre sequels (and there were a few solid additions here and there, which proved to be the exception rather than the standard), but in recent years it has become something of a problem, with the studio being more intent on recapturing the magic of their original works by either giving them needless sequels or crafting egregious live-action remakes, in the hopes that audiences initially enamoured with the originals will come out in droves to support whatever content features the characters and stories they adore, regardless of quality. One of the rare instances of a film being subjected to both a useless sequel and bewildering live-action remake is Moana, the studio’s beautiful and compelling tribute to Pacific Islanders and their culture, which was something of a sensation when it was released nearly a decade ago. For some reason, despite being one of their strongest offerings of the past decade, the studio decided that allowing it to exist in isolation as a cherished, beloved film, it would need to become one of their flagship franchises, leading to these two bizarre projects. The subject of the conversation is the remake, Moana 2, a film that quite frankly should not exist – initially crafted as a television series for the studio’s streaming service, it shifted gears at the eleventh hour after it was clear that audiences didn’t respond to the programmes as much as they did the film, leading to a poorly-crafted, unconvincing mess of a film that lacks any of the originality or charm of the original, and borders on being a complete misfire.

The reasons Moana proved to be such a sensation in the first place are not difficult at all to discern – this was a story that took place in a time and place we had rarely seen before in a major family-oriented film and reflected a culture that was severely under-represented in American media, despite its rich history and fascinating traditions. For all of its faults, Moana 2 does attempt to be a thorough, engaging examination of these themes, and one has to wonder whether the decision to change it from a television series to a film meant some of the more nuanced details were lost to keep it at a respectable length. There are a few solid elements that do prevent the film from being a thorough disaster, primarily relating to the efforts to pay tribute to the culture and the people who practice it, which is perhaps the only saving grace of this film, albeit one that never really amounts to anything all that valuable in the first place, and fact turns out to feel like a burden after some time since the filmmakers don’t quite know what to do with the promising material, especially since they aren’t given much room to explore the themes as deeply as they would with a more mature, well-rounded production. Nonetheless, we can at least appreciate the effort, and there are attempts to build on the mythology of the original film – new characters are introduced that represent a much broader and more thorough range of personalities, each one having a clear skill that comes in useful throughout the film (a clear remnant of the television origins, where a clear-cut set of characters is introduced to push the plot forward, choosing to be more ensemble-based rather than depending on a few foundational leads), and which ultimately does slightly elevate the film, albeit not enough to be anything more than passable – and even in this case, it doesn’t feel all that audacious or daring, and instead is the only admirable quality of a project that was not envisioned to be viewed in such a one-dimensional manner, which does every bit of promise this film had an immense disservice from the outset.

Moana 2 features the return of the core cast of the original film, which is mainly constructed around them and their exploits, even if the characters only encounter each other midway through. Auliʻi Cravalho, whose performance in the original film was one of the rare instances of a star-making turn in an animated film, is once again a strong lead, both her emotive acting and wonderful singing voice bringing the character of Moana to life with vigour and charm. Unfortunately, she is not given much growth and seems to endure the same tropes that usually tend to afflict the majority of Disney heroes, who are constantly forced to remain stagnant, so as not to unsettle the elements that made them popular initially. Regardless, she turns in a solid performance that is rich and filled with warmth and charisma, making it clear why she has come to be seen as one of the defining breakout stars of the current era of Disney and its ability to perfectly cast these roles when they put in the effort. Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson also returns as Maui, whose performance as the rambunctious demigod in the original is probably the best performance he has ever given, primarily since it doesn’t rely on the same set of techniques he usually brings to his live-action performances, and instead pushes him to try something new throughout, which yields excellent results. His performance here is solid, but certainly secondary – he’s in much less of a film, and functions as more of a supporting presence, appearing when it is necessary but ultimately not having too much presence throughout the film. Instead, most of the cast is populated by actors drawn from the region, a smart decision that not only highlights their talent but also gives the film a sense of authenticity (and Johnson’s paycheque likely took up the majority of the casting budget), and they’re all solid, even if none of the characters are all that well-developed, nor make too much of an impression throughout the film. Awhimai Fraser is perhaps the standout, with her hypnotic voice being lent to the malevolent Matangi, the villain of the film that acts as some otherworldly entity that seeks to wreak havoc on the lives of these characters purely out of spite. It is clear every one of these characters was intended to play a much bigger part since they are clear-cut archetypes that would serve a purpose in a longer project – unfortunately, choosing to cut it down to feature-length means that we don’t get to become acquainted with any of them.

All of this ultimately brings us to the core of why Moana 2 is such a misfire, which essentially comes down to the fact that absolutely none of the magic of the original is present, despite the best efforts of everyone involved. This is the result of something envisioned as a much bigger, more expansive project being whittled down to barely being a shadow of what it was intended to be, which is unfortunately exactly the kind of tacky approach that ruins any potential this film had to be anything other than a one-dimensional, unconvincing work that never amounts to anything other than pandering to the studio’s efforts to line their pockets long before they will dare to do something original again. Disney has a problem with resting on its laurels, and this film only emphasizes these qualities, consistently refusing to do anything other than the bare minimum in nearly every aspect, and hoping that audiences will just be myopic in their love for these characters that we won’t notice. However, as we’ve seen on countless occasions, betting against the intelligence of the audience is a poor decision, since it generally tends to backfire and only serves to highlight the greed and out-of-touch nature of the studio and its consistent tendency to do very little in terms of capturing the enchantment of its golden age or renaissance, both of which contained works that cannot even be compared to the rambling ineptitude that defines this film, which pales in comparison and becomes one of the studio’s most misguided efforts. The tone is jarring, and the choice to transition this story to an entirely different medium purely for the sake of profit (since there cannot be any other reason to take all the hard work of the animators and elide more than half of it in favour of giving it a theatrical release other than to make more money) is artistically corrupt and outright absurd and removes every bit of goodwill we had for this film in theory. A poorly made sequel is bad enough, but it becomes even more troubling when we have one that is so atrocious in its vision and approach, that it makes us question our love for the original – and once a cherished work gets tarnished by the poor decisions made to replicate its success, then we know we are in dire need of a reassessment in terms of everyone involved.

The well-worn adage of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” has never been more relevant than it is when it comes to sequels, and while Disney has produced some solid follow-up films to some of their most cherished properties in the part, for the most part, they are unnecessary, and few have been more frustrating in both their lacklustre form and content than Moana 2, a film that quite simply should not exist from both an artistic and logistical standpoint. There is a complete lack of authorial vision, and it was created by committee – there are three credited directors on the film, none of which had ever helmed a film before (John Musker and Ron Clements, legends of the studio and the creative minds behind the original film and countless other exceptional works produced over the years, are seemingly nowhere to be found, not even being given an honorary credit as producers or consultants, despite their hard work making this seemingly profitable franchise possible), and who seem to be working exclusively from the perspective of creating a film that meets the pre-determined narrative points, rather than have an ounce of audacity or promise. The film is well-made (although it still doesn’t look as beautiful as some of the other films produced by Disney), but it lacks the fundamental quality that a film like this should use as its foundation: heart and soul, which is not only absent but which seem to be actively opposed in favour of just meeting non-existent narrative criteria that serve very little purpose and simply just exist to keep the viewer entertained but not even vaguely enthralled, leading to a deeply unsettling and profoundly irritating work that represents yet another low-point for a studio that has irrevocably lost its way and seems to be singularly uninterested in getting back on track.