Disney’s live-action ‘re-imagining’ of Aladdin opens this Friday. Audiences were not exactly clamoring for Will Smith to take the reins from the late Robin Williams to play the wacky genie who helps young Aladdin win the love of his life. But if the box office totals for Disney’s other ‘re-imaginings’ are any indication, the film will still make money. Even underperforming movies in the ‘re-imagining’ series, such as Tim Burton’s Dumbo which came out last March, are generally successful. According to Box Office Mojo, Dumbo grossed over $346 million worldwide. With a production budget of $170 million and a marketing budget likely half again as much, Dumbo still added tens of millions of dollars to Disney’s bottom line.
With that in mind, it’s no wonder Disney’s upcoming movie slate also includes The Lion King and Lady and the Tramp ‘re-imaginings,’ Toy Story 4 (despite the beautifully perfect ending of Toy Story 3), Frozen 2, the last of the latest Star Wars trilogy, and the next Spider-Man flick (Spidey Goes to Europe or something like that). And these are in addition to the two Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) films that came out earlier this year and made more than the Gross Domestic Product of at least thirty countries.*
*Captain Marvel and Avengers: Endgame combined have grossed over $3.7 billion worldwide according to Box Office Mojo. Using the International Monetary Fund list on Wikipedia, this puts the two films between Guyana’s GDP of $3.636 billion and Sierra Leone’s $3.906.
With figures like that, it’s hard to fault Disney’s strategy, but I’m going to do it anyway. My first thought is that Disney didn’t create much of what they are now profiting from. They bought it. Disney purchased Marvel for $4.2 billion in 2009 in what now looks like the deal of the century. A few years later, they picked up Star Wars from George Lucas for a little over $4 billion. These were not Disney’s most expensive acquisition, though. Way back in 2006, when the coolest phones still flipped open, Disney bought Pixar in a deal totaling $7.4 billion. (Of course, that figure is peanuts compared to the $71.3 billion they just spent to buy Fox. By the way, that amount is between Luxembourg ($68.770) and Syria ($77.460) on the GDP list.)
Ignoring the Fox purchase since the ink is still drying on the contract, Disney’s $15 billion bought them some very iconic content. Their massive investment has no doubt already been recouped. I just wonder how long they can sustain the model. When Nick Fury, Jr. is Director of SHIELD, and the Avengers are headed by Sunfire and Squirrel Girl, will the movies still outpace the GDP of small countries? The Han Solo standalone film bombed so badly, Disney is rethinking their whole approach to the SWCU (Star Wars Cinematic Universe). When will the magic of Toy Story end? (To prove I am a bit of a hypocrite, I will say I love those movies so much, I hope it’s not this summer.)
They are also going to run out of ‘re-imaginings.’ It’s easy to picture a day after the live action version of The Aristocats comes out when Disney will need new material. Based on their track record, I am not sure where that is going to come from. Frozen is the only major original film they have had success with in recent years. It was a huge one to be sure, but in his heyday, Walt Disney would pump out classic original films like clockwork. Who has time to create the next story to rival Frozen when everyone is busy working on its sequels? Is anyone trying to dream up the next Star Wars sized idea? What spectacular universe of heroes and villains can one day take over for The Avengers? Can the Pixar brand do something fresh that would be better than making Cars 4?
If I were the head of Disney, would I be asking these questions? I don’t know. The stock is doing well so our investors are happy. Netflix is wetting their pants over our upcoming Disney+ streaming service. My compensation package is huge. We just released the highest grossing film of all time. Things are going great. Why upset the apple cart?
These answers trouble me because they are a businessman’s answers. Creative companies shouldn’t be run by business sense alone. Walt Disney was a businessman, but he was also a creative genius who was willing to take risks. Fantasia is the perfect example. What started as a Silly Symphonies short to help Mickey Mouse regain some lost popularity grew to a full-length feature film of animated vignettes set to classical music. The production team pioneered a stereo sound system, known as Fantasound, unlike anything heard before. The budget ballooned to an astounding (for 1940) $2.28 million. And it was initially a box office failure. The stereo set-up required theaters to be specially outfitted. Distribution costs were much higher than the average film. The onset of World War II prevented overseas engagements. Fantasia didn’t end up making a profit until 1969. It’s also an iconic masterpiece that adjusted for inflation is now one of the highest grossing films of all times. It’s a risk that was worth it both artistically and (eventually) financially.
Creative risk is where great art comes from, but it’s hard to take a risk when there are nine zeroes to the right of a comma in the bottom line. It makes sense to be safe and earn a profit, whether it be on the smallish side (Dumbo) or the gargantuan (the MCU). The problem is that over time, this thinking will cause artistic stagnation. Stan Lee didn’t lead Marvel to success by doing things the same way DC had done in the past. He pushed boundaries and co-created an encyclopedia worth of characters along the way. George Lucas didn’t give up when Universal and Disney (ironically) turned him down and suggested he try something more like his previous film, the commercially and critically successful American Graffiti. Lucas maintained his vision for Star Wars and found the financing to create the movie he saw in his head. Would Disney make a different decision and take a chance on him today? I doubt it. And that’s a tragedy.
I’m not naïve enough to think that the people who run Disney or hold their stock will ever care more about great art than making money. But I do believe there is a way to find a better balance. Instead of four live-action ‘re-imaginings’ per year, how about making one fewer and spending that money on something new and different? Maybe take $100 million of the Avengers profits and make ten $10 million movies to see what resonates with audiences. If just one of them turns into something that can be franchised, it will have been worth it from a financial perspective. If another one somehow defies the odds and becomes as iconic as Fantasia, that outcome would be priceless.
