When I was growing up, I never really understood the jokes I'd hear in stuff like The Simpsons about Disney running the world. Sure, they had big movies but in my mind, they were no bigger than anyone else. If anything, they were smaller because they only appealed to kids. And as a kid of the 90's, Disney seemed out of touch compared to the likes of Nickelodeon or The Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers. Skip ahead 20 years and now Disney owns the Simpsons (and all of Twentieth Century Fox for that matter) and they're primed to have one of the most profitable years any one production studio has ever had. In a summer that has seen diminishing returns nearly every weekend, there are only 5 films in 2019 that have managed to make more than $200 million - all of which Disney has a piece of (the 5th being Spider-Man, which Disney splits with Sony).
Spider-Man: Far From Home has nearly crossed the $300 million mark after just 17 days in theaters, Aladdin has grossed $335 million, Toy Story 4 has $357 million (and climbing), Captain Marvel made $426 million, and a little film by the name of Avengers: Endgame became the second highest grossing film of all time this April with $852 million. For comparison, Universal's biggest film of the year, Jordan Peele's Us, made $175 million. Warner Brothers' biggest success, Detective Pickachu - $143 million. Paramount's Rocketman, just $92 million. And this weekend Disney's latest live action remake, The Lion King, is forecasted to make $190 million in it's first 3 days. Every other studio has spent the summer fighting over scraps and in 3 days, Disney will out earn every one of their films for the sixth time this year in just a 72 hour span. Here's a screenshot of the top 20 films of 2019 courtesy of boxofficemojo.com (BV stands for Buena Vista, the brand name which all of the divisions and subsidiaries of Disney operate).
And if you think that's proof enough that we're nearing an entertainment monopoly; the Mickey Mouse empire still has Maleficent: Mistress of Evil, Frozen 2, and Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker coming out in the second half of 2019. All of which I think are probably safe bets to cross that $200 million mark as well. Even if Maleficent falls short, the Frozen and Star Wars sequels will more than make up for it. Not to mention the launching of their own streaming platform, Disney+, this November. And the opening of Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge at Walt Disney World this August. What the hell are they going to do with all this money when they run out of cartoons to remake?
With the home viewing experience getting better and better with the advancement of high definition televisions and streaming services delivering quality entertainment to audiences that no longer have to even leave their couch, it's not all that surprising to see theater attendance in a decline. But somehow, Disney seems to be the lone outlier. Their theatrical releases are still must see events. But what I don't understand is why? We've seen countless attempts at unnecessary reboots and sequels from other studios fall flat on their face but some how Disney's have a popularity that seems impervious to financial repercussion. It's as if they've become too big to fail. Even with lukewarm fan reaction and fairly mixed critical reception (rottentomatoes.com has this year's Aladdin, Dumbo, and Lion King all rating below 60%) all of their live action remakes have made money hand over fist. And I feel like we've been talking about the impending effects of superhero fatigue for a decade now. Are audiences ever really going to move on from Marvel when it's the lone surviving tent-pole attraction? They've eradicated their competition to such a degree that hardly anyone is even left to put up a fight.
And with all of those resources at their disposal, why is Disney playing it so safe? People are going to see the new Lion King regardless of quality because it's embedded in their childhood. If anyone has the capital to take some risks on developing new intellectual properties instead of remaking every piece of their back catalog, it should be Disney. Even Pixar, who hadn't made a sequel outside of Toy Story 2 in their first 14 years of existence, has made sequels out of 7 of their last 11 projects. But what's the point of "remaking" Disney's animated classics anyways? I guess I could understand in the case of something like Cinderella or Snow White, where the majority of your cast is made up of humans but The Lion King? Where the entire cast is talking (and occasionally singing) animals? The charm of animation is to show you something you couldn't possibly see in real life. What's the point of spending millions of dollars animating lifelike renders of lions that aren't actually going to be doing much of anything that's lifelike in the story? If a warthog is going to serenade a lion with a duet featuring a meerkat about eating bugs and farting, it kind of makes sense that he's a cartoon and not hyper-realistic. Just like it makes a lot more sense for a magic genie to be able to shape-shift and create anything his animators can draw rather than turning Will Smith into a blue CGI abomination.
And for the most part, Disney's animated films have aged unbelievably well. The first movie I ever saw in a movie theater was Disney's re-release of Pinnochio, a movie made 47 years before I was even born, and I absolutely loved it. Can you imagine taking a 6 year old kid today and forcing them to sit through Herbie Rides Again or Bedknobs and Broomsticks? The only way a kid in 2019 is going to sit still for the entirety of either of those movies is if they've fallen asleep, which is incredibly likely given the way those films have aged. But the great thing about animated films, is that they don't show age like a live action film does. There's no outdated lighting, costumes, or production elements anywhere in sight. Animation is, for the most part, pretty timeless. CGI - not so much. So why remake something that's going to age worse than the original has?
It's a shameless cash grab by a conglomerate that already has more capital than anyone else in the first place. Which is what's even scarier about one company having this much power over an industry. They can do pretty much whatever they want as the only theatrical option for family entertainment and suffer no consequences. Films like Deadpool or Logan only get to exist because they exist outside the Disney umbrella. Or at least they did. Now we may see more of a sterilized Wade Wilson like the hatchet job "Once Upon a Deadpool" Disney released last Christmas so that he can fit in with the family friendly Avengers universe. And with more and more creative risks being taken on the small screen, you could theorize that television may become the lone safe haven for alternative voices. But then you have Disney+ and Disney's newly acquired Hulu coming for that Netflix money as well. So before you blindly buy a ticket for Spider-Man 9 or Star Wars 14, maybe consider where else that money could be spent. Somewhere where it's more greatly appreciated. Somewhere to keep an alternate avenue open for those that don't necessarily operate within the Mickey Mouse standard operating procedure. Somewhere willing to take risks for its customers, rather than exploit their nostalgia for easy money.
Comments