As someone who grew up with Disney’s original animated classics and has witnessed the evolution of these timeless tales into live-action remakes, I find myself both captivated and cautious about this phenomenon. On one hand, the financial success of these remakes is astounding, breaking records left and right. Yet, on the other hand, the sequels to these remakes seem to be a different story altogether.
Whoa, it’s mind-blowing to think about how profitable these Disney live-action remakes have become, from “Alice in Wonderland” back in March 2010 onwards! Nine of these movies have earned over $200 million domestically, and some, like “Beauty and the Beast”, “Aladdin”, and “Alice”, have even surpassed the $1 billion mark globally. To put it in perspective, “Beast” still holds the title as the biggest live-action musical ever made, not just domestically, but also the only one to cross the $500 million threshold right here in North America. As a movie lover, I can’t help but be amazed by these box office successes!
Apart from rare exceptions like “Dumbo”, it’s clear that Disney’s live-action/animated reboots are essentially profit machines for their executives. However, an interesting twist to this trend is that when Disney attempts to produce sequels based on these rebooted films, they often fail. Before the release of “Mufasa: The Lion King”, it’s important to recall that past instances where Disney made sequels to live-action versions of their original animated movies have flopped spectacularly. Regardless of how many box office records they break, these sequel titles struggle to maintain audience interest in the long run.
Why Did Maleficent: Mistress of Evil and Alice Through the Looking Glass Bomb?
As a devoted Disney enthusiast, it was quite evident even before “Alice in Wonderland” graced the big screens in March 2010 that moviegoers were losing interest in sequels to Disney’s live-action remakes. Looking back to November 1996, Disney struck gold with “101 Dalmatians,” a film starring Glenn Close that raked in over $136 million domestically. The success of this movie sparked dreams among Disney executives about expanding it into a sprawling franchise. However, four years later, “102 Dalmatians” was released over the Thanksgiving weekend in 2000. Despite Jim Carrey’s “Grinch” movie stealing the limelight as the family blockbuster of that holiday season, the enthusiasm for the original 1996 “Dalmatians” seemed to fade over time. Unfortunately, “102 Dalmatians” flopped at the box office with just $66.9 million domestically, a significant drop from its predecessor.
Establishing such remakes set a strong precedent: the appeal of viewing lifelike Disney characters, particularly classic ones like those from Disney’s Alice stories, seemed to last only for one film. This initial allure was undeniably attractive to audiences, but it was clear that after that, they had seen enough live-action canine counterparts. Despite this, Disney still opted to produce Alice Through the Looking Glass in the 2010s as a means to capitalize on the $1-billion global earnings of Alice in Wonderland. Unfortunately, this decision led to a disastrous box office performance, with the film earning less during its entire North American run than the initial film made during its opening weekend.
The film “Maleficent: Mistress of Evil” had a slightly improved box office performance in October 2019, but the improvement was minimal. It managed to earn over $100 million domestically, but it still fell short of earning half as much as the original “Maleficent” did domestically. Unfortunately, both sequels were affected by the extended gap between releases that also impacted “102 Dalmatians.” The delay of six years between the adventures of “Alice” and “Maleficent” made it clear to many that they could manage without additional installments in these franchises. To add insult to injury, these sequels failed to capture the nostalgia that their predecessors did.
In essence, neither Sleeping Beauty nor Alice in Wonderland received follow-ups within Disney’s classic animation series. The 2019 adaptation of Aladdin, however, managed to evoke strong audience feelings by featuring popular songs such as “A Whole New World” and “Friend Like Me.” On the other hand, Mistress of Evil and Through the Looking Glass lacked the emotional pull of nostalgia. Instead, they relied solely on the goodwill generated by their remakes to drive ticket sales. Given the controversial impact Alice in Wonderland had on its long-term cultural influence, this approach might not have been the best choice. Consequently, these films struggled at the box office much like 102 Dalmatians did as we entered a new millennium.
Don’t Expect a Deluge of Further Disney Remake Sequels
It appears that Disney didn’t heed the lessons from “102 Dalmatians” prior to starting production on “Alice Through the Looking Glass.” Nevertheless, recent Disney remake sequels seem to have had an effect on Disney, as evidenced by the absence of more titles in this vein. While director Guy Ritchie has occasionally discussed a potential “Aladdin” sequel, there’s been little progress on the project, nearly six years after its release. A proposed “Jungle Book” sequel has been stuck in development limbo for almost a decade. As for “Beauty and the Beast,” there’s no sequel in sight at the moment.
In contrast to most cases, where a film’s success can lead to a sequel or remake, The Lion King, originally starring Mufasa, stands out because its predecessor made such an astronomical profit that it seemed unwise not to capitalize on it further. However, the financial performance of Disney’s live-action reboots in the 2020s has been quite inconsistent, effectively squashing any hopes for sequels or additional installments for movies like Mulan, Peter Pan & Wendy. As for Cruella 2, initial discussions took place, but given Emma Stone’s busy schedule, producing another Cruella film seems unlikely at this point.
At present, the financial missteps of “Mistress of Evil” and “Through the Looking Glass” sequels seem unlikely to be replicated soon. Yet, these follow-ups cast a shadow on the lasting influence these Disney remakes might have in pop culture. For instance, “Inside Out” waited nine years for its sequel and turned into a box office sensation. On the other hand, “Maleficent” and “Alice in Wonderland” were merely fleeting box office successes that failed to cultivate enduring fanbases or devotion.
It seems reasonable that Disney executives might find this amount sufficient, considering how lucrative these titles are during their first cinema releases. Few films manage to earn over $900 million globally, as a fact. However, the disappointing history of remake sequels serves as a reminder that live-action or realistically animated adaptations may never match up to the original animated classics. We’ll have to wait and see if Mufasa: The Lion King buck this trend and avoid being impacted by the box office curse that has affected all previous Disney remake expansions.
Read More
- PSP PREDICTION. PSP cryptocurrency
- NYM PREDICTION. NYM cryptocurrency
- IP PREDICTION. IP cryptocurrency
- EUR IDR PREDICTION
- RLC PREDICTION. RLC cryptocurrency
- INJ PREDICTION. INJ cryptocurrency
- XRD PREDICTION. XRD cryptocurrency
- CTK PREDICTION. CTK cryptocurrency
- EUR INR PREDICTION
- COW PREDICTION. COW cryptocurrency
2024-12-14 22:10