DVDizzy.com

So, with all the discussion recently about which Disney title, serves as the initial point for the new animation Renaissance ( I believe it's "Tangled" btw); which live action film, would you say began the "Live-Action" Renaissance ( if there is once). The reason I ask, is because, I have often wondered which current live-action/theatrical films harken back to the studios successes with "Old Yeller, Swiss Family, That Darn Cat). I guess it is difficult to gage because of the number of live actions films released and the fact that there was no successive financial or critical success. However, it seems that with "Cinderella" and now "The Jungle Book" winning over critics and financial successes; perhaps the live-action dept. is on a roll as well.

I don't think there is one. Live action is easy and cheap enough to do (compared to animation) that its always going to be pretty hit or miss.

I think it depends if Marvel movies and Star Wars are counted. Those two franchises alone completely skew Disney's average quality for their live-action films. Personally, I don't count them, since Marvel Studios and Lucasfilm do most of the production-work for those. Just looking at Walt Disney Pictures' films in particular, Disney's recent live-action lineup has been pretty solid in quality but far less remarkable than Disney Animation's output. I mean, Tomorrowland failed pretty hard last year, and The Finest Hours earlier this year didn't even recoup its budget.

Plus, even though the fairy tale remakes are doing pretty well, I'm disappointed that more original live-action productions are being overshadowed. Disney Animation is bringing all these fantastic, creative stories to the screen while Disney's live-action team is stuck copying those stories. It's kind of a gloomy situation, since in the future, I'm sure audiences will grow bored of rewatching non-animated (well, sort of) replicas of animated films. I'm already tired of spending money to see the same stories being told. Even though The Jungle Book is probably one my top 10 favorite animated Disney movies, I don't really feel an urge to pay and see the new one in a theater. Even though the film will surely be a box-office hit, I know that I'm probably not alone here.

_________________

I'd say it started with Pirates of the Caribbean. It was the first time in a long time that Disney's live-action department proved it could still make critically and financially successful blockbusters.

_________________

thanks for the responses..i guessing i was just asking, in essence, was: when/what films started a trend for becoming pretty profitable and critically sound? i think pirates is a good contender...i know that live action was a snooze in the 70's/80's with some sprinkled hits in the lates 80's-90's

I would say the Pirates movies. And starting with Alice in Wonderland in 2010, I think Disney discovered how much money they could get from remaking their fairytales and animated classics in live action.

_________________
Favorite Disney-movies: Snow White, Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, Sleeping Beauty, The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Pocahontas, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules, Mulan, Tarzan, Tangled, Frozen, Pirates, Enchanted, Prince of Persia, Tron, Oz The Great and Powerful

I think it was Alice in Wonderland that started the whole "Live Action Renaissance" and unleashed a plethora of upcoming adaptations that haven't been filmed yet.

_________________
Disney, Pixar, Rodgers and Hammerstein, and Film fan since 1999

Yeah, probably PotC. But it does seem like many of the films since AiW have been hugely successful.

_________________

Listening to most often lately:
Angela Lansbury (Sweeney Todd) ~ "A Little Priest"
Bernadette Peters (Smash) ~ "At Your Feet"
Bette Midler (Gypsy) ~ "Some People"

So, reading that The Nutcracker and the Four Realms is getting bad reviews (I still know I'm going to love it- I'm so excited), I was curious as to if there is a correlation between reviews and box office for Disney's live action films this decade. (I didn't include sequels , sports films, or pseudo-documentaries {Saving Mr. Banks}.

As of right now, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms has 33% Rotten based on 52 reviews, and had a budget of $130 mil.

Critics’ ratings
The Jungle Book, 95% Fresh
Pete’s Dragon, 87% Fresh
Cinderella, 83% Fresh
The BFG, 75% Fresh
Christopher Robin, 72% Fresh
Beauty and the Beast, 71% Fresh
Into the Woods, 71% Fresh
Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day, 61% Fresh
Oz the Great and Powerful, 59% Rotten
Maleficent, 51% Rotten
Alice in Wonderland, 51% Rotten
John Carter, 50% Rotten
Tomorrowland, 49% Rotten
A Wrinkle in Time, 42% Rotten
The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, 41% Rotten
Prom, 36% Rotten
The Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, 36% Rotten
The Odd Life of Timothy Green, 35% Rotten
The Lone Ranger, 31% Rotten

% of audience that liked it
Christopher Robin, 86%
The Jungle Book, 86%
Beauty and the Beast, 81%
Cinderella, 78%
Pete’s Dragon, 72%
Maleficent, 70%
The Odd Life of Timothy Green, 67%
John Carter, 60%
The Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, 58%
Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day, 58%
The BFG, 57%
Oz the Great and Powerful, 56%
Alice in Wonderland, 55%
The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, 53%
The Lone Ranger, 51%
Into the Woods, 49%
Tomorrowland, 49%
Prom, 39%
A Wrinkle in Time, 28%

Budgets
John Carter, $250 mil.
Oz the Great and Powerful, $215 mil.
The Lone Ranger, $215 mil.
The Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, $200 mil.
Alice in Wonderland, $200 mil.
Tomorrowland, $190 mil.
Maleficent, $180 mil.
The Jungle Book, $175 mil.
Beauty and the Beast, $160 mil.
The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, $150 mil.
The BFG, $140 mil.
A Wrinkle in Time, $100-$130 mil.
Cinderella, $95 mil.
Christopher Robin, $70-$75 mil.
Pete’s Dragon, $65 mil.
Into the Woods, $50 mil.
Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day, $28 mil.
The Odd Life of Timothy Green, $25 mil.
Prom, $8 mil.

Domestic earnings/loss
Beauty and the Beast, earned $344 mil.
The Jungle Book, earned $189 mil.
Alice in Wonderland, $134 mil.
Cinderella, earned $106 mil.
Into the Woods, earned $78 mil.
Maleficent, earned $61 mil.
Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day, earned $38 mil.
The Odd Life of Timothy Green, earned $26 mil.
Christopher Robin, earned $23-$28 mil.
Oz the Great and Powerful, earned $19 mil.
Pete’s Dragon, earned $11 mil.
Prom, $2 mil.
A Wrinkle in Time, either broken even or lost up to $30 mil. (the budget has a $30 mil. gap)
The BFG, lost $85 mil.
The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, lost $87 mil.
Tomorrowland, lost $97 mil.
The Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, lost $110 mil.
The Lone Ranger, lost $126 mil.
John Carter, lost $177 mil.

Worldwide (including domestic) earnings
Beauty and the Beast, $1,103,000,000 (1 billion 103 million!)
Alice in Wonderland, $825 mil.
The Jungle Book, $791 mil.
Maleficent, $578 mil.
Cinderella, $448 mil.
Oz the Great and Powerful, $278 mil.
Into the Woods, $163 mil.
The Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, $136 mil.
Christopher Robin, $118-123 mil.
Pete’s Dragon, $78 mil.
Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day, $73 mil.
The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, $65 mil.
The Lone Ranger, $45 mil.
The BFG, $43 mil.
John Carter, $34 mil.
The Odd Life of Timothy Green, $31 mil.
A Wrinkle in Time, either earned $2 mil. or $32 mil. (the budget has a $30 mil. gap)
Tomorrowland, $19 mil.
(Apparently Prom was not released internationally?)

(I used Box Office Mojo, Rotten Tomatoes, Wikipedia, & The New York Times)

_________________

I didn't realize The Odd Life of Timothy Green was that poorly reviewed; I would've thought it would be in the 50-60% range. I didn't know Into the Woods was poorly reviewed either. I always thought I was one of the few who didn't enjoy it.

I enjoyed seeing the differences between critic ratings and how much the audience enjoyed the films. Poor Wrinkle in Time failed by all measures, what a shame. Thanks for posting.

_________________

Listening to most often lately:
Angela Lansbury (Sweeney Todd) ~ "A Little Priest"
Bernadette Peters (Smash) ~ "At Your Feet"
Bette Midler (Gypsy) ~ "Some People"

Interesting. Thanks for compiling all those lists of information. It's super awesome to see it all!

_________________

Inspired again by my obsession with The Nutcracker and the Four Realms, I was curious as to if the movies that lost money in their theatrical runs made it back in home video sales.

The only home video estimates I can find are domestic, so we'll work with that.





Domestic total, box office + home video:
Beauty and the Beast, earned $430 mil.
Alice in Wonderland, earned $253 mil.
The Jungle Book, earned $235 mil.
Cinderella, earned $154 mil.
Maleficent, earned $142 mil.
Into the Woods, earned $105 mil.
Oz the Great and Powerful, earned $71 mil.
Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day, earned $53 mil.
The Odd Life of Timothy Green, earned $46 mil.
Pete’s Dragon, earned $38 mil.
Prom, earned $4 mil.
(Christopher Robin's home video release is just coming out this week, so we don't have #s on that.)
A Wrinkle in Time, If theatrical broke even, earned $12 mil.; up to if theatrical lost $30 mil., only lost $18 mil. incl. DVD/Blu (the budget has a $30 mil. gap)
The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, lost only $50 mil.
The Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, lost only $59 mil.
The BFG, lost only $68 mil.
The Lone Ranger, lost only $80 mil.
Tomorrowland, lost only $86 mil.
John Carter, lost only $139 mil.

Ummm, so we just need to hope that The Nutcracker and the Four Realms does decent at the box office, because as this shows, some of these movies lost A LOT of money, at least domestically. At least everything made some money when you factor in international box office, and especially if you factor in international home video sales (I wish I could find those numbers!).

*Home video estimates from the-numbers.com

My next trail of thought went to if home video sales have gone down over time. Alice in Wonderland is the oldest film on the list, and it sold the most DVDs/Blu-rays. However, I believe that digital downloads are not included in the above list, so surely The Jungle Book has sold more digital downloads than The Prince of Persia, for example.

My next trail of thought is, which movies earned more on home video than they did theatrically (still only using domestic #s, and not including movies that lost money):

Maleficent, Oz The Great and Powerful, Pete's Dragon, and maybe A Wrinkle in Time (darn the $30-million gap!). Mal & Oz didn't have the greatest critical ratings, so I wonder if that contributed to a lesser theatrical earning.

Going back to The Nutcracker and the Four Realms, on Thursday November 1, at 1:08pm, it was 33% Rotten based on 52 reviews. Now, Saturday November 3, at 7:18am, it is 35% Rotten based on 124 reviews, and 45% of the audience liked it...

_________________

I don’t think there is a live-action renaissance. Like so many of Disney’s recent live-action properties before it, from John Carter to A Wrinkle in Time, Nutcracker and the Four Realms is clearly going to bomb. Hard. The only big hitters in Disney’s live-action production are of course the remakes of their other properties. But considering they’ve already done Jungle Book and Beauty and the Beast, and next year is offering up *both* Aladdin and Lion King, they’re quickly running out of the classics that will deliver substantial commercial successes. I mean, it’s hardly like a Sword in the Stone or Lady and the Tramp reboot is ever going to reach $1 billion. If they’re lucky, the other remakes in the pipeline might make a healthy Cinderella-style $500 million. Or they could well do Christopher Robin numbers.

Throw in the fact that Pirates is entirely dependent on the international market and is about to undertake a potentially risky reboot without its biggest star, that the main stars of the Marvel universe will bow out in the next Infinity War, and that Solo has proven that Star Wars stories outside the main trilogy (which will wrap up next year) aren’t exactly striking gold...I think Disney’s live-action work might be in trouble in a few years. They need original live-action stories which can appeal to people, and really, once you discount the remakes and reimaginings, the last time that happened was 15 years ago with the original Pirates.

Good point. Which makes it even more remarkable that B&tB has such high DVD/Blu-ray sales.

_________________

Listening to most often lately:
Angela Lansbury (Sweeney Todd) ~ "A Little Priest"
Bernadette Peters (Smash) ~ "At Your Feet"
Bette Midler (Gypsy) ~ "Some People"

The live action "remakes" have been hit or miss in my opinion. Some I have loved...some not so much. I do have a feeling that this "nostalgia" factor that Disney is banking on, will eventually get redundant. I wish that they would adapt more original material rather than this continual rehash gimmick. If they are going to remake their catalog...remake the films that were not good to begin with or more obscure titles. There are several films from the anthology series that would be great choices.

They won't need to since both titles are heading directly to streaming. Disney's streaming service will be the home for remakes of moderately popular animated films.


I hear you but why would Disney take the unnecessary risk of remaking unpopular titles when the very reason they're doing remakes in the first place is to capitalize on their popularity and brand recognition?

_________________

It's interesting some of the worst reviewed films like Alice in Wonderland and Beauty and the Beast sold the most on home video.

_________________

This is an easy answer, the "Live Action" renaissance started with 20,000 Leagues and ended with Mary Poppins. Walt was in true form in this era and many of the company's greatest live action films came out of this period. I realize that a lot of people have been saying Pirates of The Caribbean, but outside of those films, the studio really hasn't made very many original, iconic films in modern times that will stand the test of time like Parent Trap, Old Yeller or Pollyanna have, although the late 80's to the 90's might have been the closest. What they have produced are a lot of large budget pop corn films produced for opening weekend, but quickly forgotten after that.

_________________
____________________________________________________________
All the adversity I've had in my life, all my troubles and obstacles, have strengthened me... You may not realize it when it happens, but a kick in the teeth may be the best thing in the world for you.

-Walt Disney

That’s wise of them! But it doesn’t change the overall point I was making - once Disney is done remaking the really popular ones, where next? It’s going to be a step down commercially. It’s lucrative to produce these remakes, but only in a rather short-termist way. It’s not going to offer a durable set of successes.

I’m inclined to agree with milojthatch, but I’d go one step further and suggest there’s never exactly been a true Golden Age of quality live-action filmmaking. There’s been ages where a different aesthetic or style is in vogue, from light-hearted and incredibly corny Fred MacMurray vehicles (The Absent-Minded Professor, The Shaggy Dog, The Happiest Millionaire), to dark cult movie whimsy (Something Wicked This Way Comes, Hocus Pocus, Return to Oz), to instantly forgettable attempts at franchise-starters (John Carter, Prince of Persia, The Lone Ranger). But there’s no period of sustained excellence in any way comparable to the Renaissance or the animated films of the 1930s and early 1940; the genuine successes, in both critical and commercial terms, are exceptions, and have never been the norm. Even during Walt’s time, only a few of his live-action efforts came close to the heights of his animation work, and those few were the prestigious pictures he personally was more involved in or put the extra investment into (20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and of course Mary Poppins).

I agree with Dr. Frank. There's not a stable line of successes in regards to the live action films in comparison to the animated ones. And once all is said and done, which is Disney ultimately remembered for? Everyone can recall Snow White or Pinocchio, but only hardcore geeks (not all disnerds, obviously) know of The Happiest Millionaire and 20000 Leagues. I think even Disney themselves is aware of this, which is why they barely promote them. I don't blame foreign Disney fans not knowing of them (or not caring for them) considering how difficult it would be to search for them outside the USA / UK.

And if we're gonna call "success" to the remakes, which their whole gimmick relies on copying the original films they're based on...

_________________
Awaiting for the Beatles of DVDIzzy: Disneyjedi , disneyphilip, TsWade2, and 2DDisney4Ever

And Goliath and Duster were Sonny and Cher.