So Many People Are Going to Galaxy's Edge, Disneyland Has To Actually Expand Entryway

So Many People Are Going to Galaxy's Edge, Disneyland Has To Actually Expand Entryway

We're coming into the home stretch before Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge opens at Disneyland, but the park still has a lot of work to do to get ready. In anticipation of the major crowds that are expected to swarm the park, Disneyland recently took to modifying the entrance to Adventureland, which will be one of the major pathways to Galaxy's Edge, in order to allow it to accommodate more people. This included removing the iconic sign above the hub entrance, though the word is Disney Parks plans to reuse as much of the sign as possible for the brand new entrance.

Disneyland's hub and spoke design is an iconic part of the park's layout that allowed guests to enter any of the park's major areas once they reached the end of Main Street USA. However, even with the park's first major expansion back in the 1960s, this concept began to fall apart. New Orleans Square was built out of a corner of Frontierland, meaning guests had to go through either Adventureland or Frontierland to get there.

Mickey's Toontown likewise requires guests to trek all the way through Fantasyland to see it.

The only space that Disneyland has had available for expansion has been in the back of the park, in an area previously holding offices and other "behind the scenes" cast member areas. This is going to make traffic a serious concern at Disneyland as the new area that everybody is going to be headed towards requires guests to pass through the rest of the park, making pretty much the entire park feel more crowded.

Adventureland Sign Removal

In order to make this a little more painless, Disneyland recently widened the path between the hub and Adventureland. One problem, that has DIsney fans a little sad, is that the wider path means the existing Adventureland sign no longer fits.

The permit to remove the iconic Adventureland sign was first uncovered by theme park fan Matthew Gotula in early April. The new entrance has been largely completed, and now has a very small sign denoting your location.

While there is only a small sign there now, a new larger sign is planned to be created, which will utilize as much of the previous sign as possible. The plan, according to the OC Register, is to have the new sign in place in time for the Galaxy's Edge opening May 31.

Dole Whip Diversion

A number of other changes are being implemented to help deal with crowds. One potentially surprising change is that the Dole Whip stand in front of the Enchanted Tiki Room will be closed on busy days, in order to prevent the crowds that often line up to get the popular soft serve pineapple treat.

Fear not, however, Dole Whip will still be available at the new Tropical Hideway, the grab-and-go food stand that opened late last year. Dole Whip is always available there. Also, you can get it with rum at the Disneyland Hotel coffee house, if you're inclined to such things.

The Dole Whip stand situation shows just how important these changes are. Normally, on a busy day, Disneyland would want to have as many places to buy Dole Whip, or anything else for that matter, as possible. However, in this case traffic flow is actually even more important than selling more food.

Project Stardust

All of these changes are part of a large, park wide, traffic review called Project Stardust (Star Wars+ Pixie Dust). Everything from seating and planter locations to stroller parking has been under review, and much of it has been moved or removed, in order to make it easier for people to make their way through the park.

Early estimates were that Disneyland could see as many as 200,000 people on the opening day of Galaxy's Edge. While the exact capacity of the park is unknown, estimates put the number at someplace around 85,000 people.

It's unclear if things will be quite that dire, since Disneyland has instituted a reservation system for the first three weeks after Galaxy's Edge opens. You can secure a reservation for Galaxy's Edge by making a Disneyland Resort hotel reservation. Everybody, booked into the room is guaranteed entry into Galaxy's Edge during one day of the booked stay, for a period that appears to be four hours long.

Anybody not staying on property will have an opportunity to book a reservation for Galaxy's Edge on May 2.

While the reservation system will likely keep those that don't have reservations away, the four hour block will mean that those waiting for their reservation time will be all over the rest of Disneyland, making traffic flow important not only in the areas that lead to Galaxy's Edge, but everywhere in the park.

Of course, the big question is just how long the massive crowds are expected to fill Galaxy's Edge? The interest in Galaxy's Edge clearly exceeds anything that has ever come before. The new attractions will likely be the most popular in the park for years to come. Does that mean the crowds won't die down for years?

One item that could prolong the popularity of Galaxy's Edge is that the initial opening will actually only be the beginning of phase one for Galaxy's Edge. Only one of the two E-ticket attractions, Millennium Falcon: Smuggler's Run will be open on say one. The second attraction, Rise of the Resistance will come later. Exactly when has not been announced, but it will come later in 2019.

This means that even those that get to experience Galaxy's Edge early will have every reason to want to return if only to get a chance to ride the second attraction.

It's also unclear just how much you'll be able to do in a four window. Will that be enough time to ride Smuggler's Run and have dinner, or will you have to come back if you want to do both?

Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge opens at Disneyland May 31 and will come to Disney's Hollywood Studios at Walt Disney World on August 29.

Read More

So Christopher Nolan's Next Movie Won't Really Be Like North By Northwest Meets Inception?

So Christopher Nolan's Next Movie Won't Really Be Like North By Northwest Meets Inception?

It's been about a year and a half since the release of Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk, and the acclaimed director's next film is still shrouded in mystery. Well, at least it was until new reports claimed that it was a romantic thriller that was a cross between North by Northwest and Inception. It was a concept that intrigued film fans, but it sounds like it's back to the guessing games because a new report claims that the last rumor is false.

Christopher Nolan is one of the most prestigious directors working today. He's the mind behind excellent movies like The Prestige and Memento, and gained mainstream popularity for his work on The Dark Knight Trilogy. He was finally nominated for an Oscar on his last film, 2017's Dunkirk, and since then movie fans have been eagerly awaiting to find out more details about his next project.

It seemed like those details had finally come when a report from Production Weekly claimed that Christopher Nolan's new film was described "as a romantic thriller, North by Northwest in tone meets Inception." Inception blew people's minds back in 2010, and North by Northwest is said to be one of the greatest films ever made, so it's a pretty cool mashup on paper.

However, it sounds like the update was off-base. A source told IGN the information provided by Production Weekly was inaccurate. No further elaboration was given, so it sounds like we are all back in the dark on this one.

On one hand, this can be seen as good news. Christopher Nolan has many strengths, but I don't know that I would say that romance is one of them. His films usually come off as being a bit colder and focused primarily on the drama or psychosis of his main character. That's not to say he does't have a great romantic thriller in him, but it's a bit of uncharted territory for Nolan.

For those who may not know, North by Northwest is a 1959 thriller from Alfred Hitchcock. It followed Cary Grant as a man with mistaken identity who winds up running across the country as he's swept up into a conspiracy. Even if you've never seen the film, you've probably seen the above image of Cary Grant running from an airplane recreated a dozen different times in pop culture.

Inception is one of Christopher Nolan's most well-known films, and it starred Leonardo DiCaprio as a thief who steals information by entering people's dreams.

At least we know one thing about Christopher Nolan's next movie: the release date. The movie is currently slated to arrive in theaters on July 17, 2020. There are lot of movies to look forward to until then, so be sure to learn about them all in our handy 2019 movie release guide.

Read More

Sinister Serial Killer Movies Based On Real-Life Crimes

Sinister Serial Killer Movies Based On Real-Life Crimes

In recent years the true crime genre has experienced a surge in popularity across different forms of media. Be it the realm of podcasts with Serial, streaming docuseries like Making a Murderer and Conversations with a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes or dramatic programs like Mindhunter, audiences can’t get enough of stories about real-life crimes.

Perhaps the true crime topic that most captivates people is that of serial killers. Something about our humanity is fascinated by the lack of it in the notorious and prolific killers who committed such heinous acts throughout history. For those who have exhausted all the books and documentaries or just want to see a dramatic interpretation, there are plenty of serial killer movies based on the real life crimes.

While stuff like Psycho, Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Silence of the Lambs took varying degrees of inspiration from actual events, this list features movies that are more closely about the real life crimes and the real serial killers who perpetrated them, making them more unnerving than any work of pure fiction, even if some are fairly loose translations. Here are a few sinister serial killer movies based on real-life crimes.

Zodiac

In 1995, David Fincher created one of the most-discussed serial killer movies ever with Se7en. then, in 2007 he returned with another film about detectives chasing down an elusive and enigmatic serial killer, Zodiac. Starring a positively lights out cast led by Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo and Robert Downey Jr., Zodiac tells the story of the Zodiac Killer, a serial killer that operated in Northern California in the late '60s and early '70s, killing at least 5 people and sending taunting letters to the press.

Zodiac is considered to be one of the best serial killer movies ever, with incredible performances and some truly disturbing and frightening moments. It is made all the more chilling by the fact that just like in real life, the case goes unsolved and we never find out the identity of the Zodiac Killer. It is an incredible mystery with a true-to-life ending that offers no easy answers. Zodiac is also probably the most historically accurate film on this list.

Monster

Wonder Woman’s Patty Jenkins made her feature directorial debut with Monster, a 2003 film that won Charlize Theron a Best Actress Oscar for her unrecognizable portrayal of serial killer Aileen Wuornos. It is based on the real life of Aileen Wuornos, one of America’s most famous female serial killers and known as “The Damsel of Death.” While working as a prostitute between 1989 and 1990, Aileen killed seven men, shooting them at point-blank range.

Although she claimed the men were trying to rape her and the murders were self-defense, Aileen Wuornos was found guilty of six of the murders and sentenced to death. Monster follows her from the first murder all the way through her trial. Whenever a serial killer movie focuses on the killer and not the investigation it runs the risk of being too sympathetic and making excuses for their crimes, but through Charlize Theron’s performance, Monster is able to strike a balance, showing the tragedy of Aileen’s life while still making her a horrifying creature befitting the film’s title.

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer

To many film fans, Michael Rooker might be Yondu from Guardians of the Galaxy, Merle from The Walking Dead or the unfortunate recipient of a chocolate-covered pretzel in Mallrats, but in 1986 he played a truly sinister serial killer. From the director of Wild Things, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer is somewhat based on the crimes of Henry Lee Lucas, who operated in the 60s and 70s and was convicted for 11 murders.

What’s fascinating is that Henry Lee Lucas confessed to hundreds of murders, but authorities later believed most of those confessions to be false. This film is inspired by those false confessions though and Henry plays without much of a story, as it just follows Michael Rooker, in a deeply unnerving performance as he goes about his day and occasionally kills people. Although not necessarily gory by today’s standards, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer is super dark and was at the time of its release in 1986 considered exploitative, which earned it an “X” rating from the MPAA.

The Snowtown Murders (Snowtown)

Before he directed Michael Fassbender in Macbeth and Assassin’s Creed, Australian director Justin Kurzel debuted with The Snowtown Murders, about one of the most publicized and heinous crimes in Australian history. Also known as the bodies-in-barrels murders, the Snowtown Murders were a series of murders that took place in the 1990s in South Australia. A group of men tortured and killed nearly a dozen people in the most brutal ways.

The Snowtown Murders depicts the events of these murders in an ultra-realistic and thus ultra-violent way. Justin Kurzel primarily used a cast of locals with no acting experience from the area where the murders occurred and filmed in some of the places where the murders happened as well. These killings are as sinister as they come and The Snowtown Murders is unflinching in its depiction of them. This is a highly disturbing, difficult watch, the kind of film that you can’t unsee; described by some as ‘snuff,' The Snowtown Murders is a captivating and intense film that stays with you if you have the stomach to sit through it.

Dahmer

Jeffrey Dahmer is one of history’s most deranged and infamous serial killers. From the late 1970s to the early 1990s, Jeffrey Dahmer murdered 17 men and boys. Beyond just the killing, Dahmer would rape his victims, dismember them and after their death sometimes engage in necrophilic and cannibalistic acts with the bodies. He would even keep the skulls and body parts of his victims as trophies. In the little-known 2003 film Dahmer, none other than Hawkeye himself, Jeremy Renner, plays the serial killer.

While not a truly great movie by most metrics, like Monster, Dahmer is still worth checking out for if only for the lead performance. Jeremy Renner’s creepy and compelling portrayal of the unfeeling serial killer is truly unsettling and will show you the range of the affable actor. Dahmer is structured with two timelines with flashbacks to the killer’s troubled youth, leading up to his first kill. Those looking for more Jeffrey Dahmer and the making of the killer, can also check out 2017’s My Friend Dahmer, which is probably a better film but is more origin story than serial killer movie.

Wolf Creek

2005’s horror film Wolf Creek is a looser adaptation than most of the entries on this list, but the crimes it is based on were very real and very sinister. Between 1989 and 1993 in New South Wales, Australia, seven young people were murdered by Ivan Milat. Known as the Backpacker murders, these killings, as well as the murder of a backpacker by Bradley John Murdoch in 2001, served as the inspiration for Wolf Creek.

In the film John Jarratt plays Mick Taylor, a psychopath in the mold of Milat and with the look of Crocodile Dundee, who hunts down three young backpackers in the outback. Wolf Creek gets super gruesome and sadistic and has something of a grindhouse vibe. The Australian horror film from writer-director Greg McLean isn’t for everyone, but it has become something of a cult horror hit, spawning both a sequel film and a TV series where John Jarratt reprises his role as serial killer Mick Taylor.

The Frozen Ground

When it comes to despicable villains, they don’t get much worse than Ramsey Bolton on Game of Thrones, who hunted and tortured his victims. Sadly, Ramsey has something of a real life analog in Robert Christian Hansen, a serial killer who hunted his victims like animals. The man the media dubbed “Butcher Baker” confessed to raping 30 women and throughout the '70s and early '80s he hunted and killed 17 women in Alaska.

The Frozen Ground stars Nicolas Cage as a state trooper trying to capture the serial killer plaguing Anchorage. He partners with a young prostitute who escaped Hansen in order to help him. The young girl Cindy, played by Vanessa Hudgens gets a lot of the focus in the film, which also stars Breaking Bad’s Dean Norris, rapper 50 Cent and John Cusack as Robert Hansen. Although it received mixed reviews, Nicolas Cage was praised for his performance as the Alaska state trooper.

These are just a few of the serial killer movies based on real crimes that are out there to fascinate and repulse. Later this year the Ted Bundy film Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil, And Vile starring Zac Efron will release on Netflix and like some of the titles on this list and any dramatic depiction of real life trauma, it is already the subject of controversy.

Check out our 2019 Release Schedule to keep track of all the biggest movies headed your way this year.

Read More

Sinemia Has A New Plan With No Restrictions

Sinemia Has A New Plan With No Restrictions

Movie subscription services have come a long way since MoviePass was the first, and only, game in town, allowing it to make whatever bold choices and/or mistakes that were felt needed in order to survive. With each new competitor like AMC Stubs’ A-List or Sinemia entering the ring, what’s being offered and the going rate for said services are subject to the slightest wind of change. And the winds are a’blowing again, as Sinemia has just announced yet another new plan in their arsenal, one that makes a promise in two simple words: “Always Unlimited.”

Clocking in at $14.99 a month, the Always Unlimited plan from Sinemia offers the subscribers that sign up one 2D movie a day. In addition to that wonderful foundation of worth, this subscription also does not restrict audience members to specific showtimes, and allows tickets to be purchased as far out as 30 days in advance. And as usual, Sinemia offers service to any movie theater, which may lure some folks away from theater specific subscriptions if they feel the offerings currently being provided are too expensive or not worth signing up for in the first place.

Previously, Sinemia only offered tiered plans that offered 1-3 movies a month to their subscribers; with monthly costs depending on format and number of persons on the plan. But in the last few months, the service provider looks to be getting more and more experimental with what it’s offering the public. This was seen in last month’s announcement of the Sinemia Limitless plan, which saw moviegoers paying a flat fee for a “limitless moviegoing experience.” Now, it looks like Sinemia users are going to have another option that’ll allow their experience at the movies to be even more convenient.

The competition isn’t sleeping on such recent developments either, as MoviePass recently announced that it was bringing back its own unlimited plan as well. Titled MoviePass Uncapped, that plan is normally offered for $19.95 a month, with unlimited 2D movies in a month. However, the caveat of no repeat viewings is integrated into this option, much like all other MoviePass tiers of subscription.

While it’s not specified in Sinemia’s big unveiling of the Always Unlimited plan, it looks like that clause about no repeated viewings of the same film might not be present. So if you’re looking to test your bladder strength with multiple showings of Avengers: Endgame, you might be able to do just that during its opening weekend.

Movie subscription services are still a market of volatility, with some potentially huge shifts still to come in the next year or so. While there’s no clear path to victory for any one playing the game, Sinemia is definitely making a bold move forward that could pay off. We’ll see how this pans out in the near future, but for now, our eyes will be peeled as to how existing providers adapt to this change, and whether or not this competing plan can gain some market share at the hands of Always Unlimited.

If you’re curious as to what Sinemia is offering with their plans, both old and new, you can visit its official website to research accordingly.

Read More

Sinemia Has A Brand New Plan To Compete With Stubs A-List And Other Movie Ticket Apps

Sinemia Has A Brand New Plan To Compete With Stubs A-List And Other Movie Ticket Apps

Although they’ve been around for years, movie theatergoing subscription services only really rose to prominence in the past year or two. And the market still seems wide open with plenty of room to grow and multiple competitors vying for the top spot. One of those competitors, Sinemia, has just announced a brand new plan to compete with the likes of AMC Stubs A-List and MoviePass by offering something different from everyone else.

Sinemia’s newest offering is called the Sinemia Limitless plan, and it is quite different than what we are accustomed to seeing with theatergoing subscription services-- mainly because it is not a subscription. The plan provides a 30% savings, allowing you to get $100 worth of movies for $70, no subscription or app required. The plan also allows you to get an additional 5% discount on tickets purchased at Sinemia partner theaters through the company’s direct ticketing feature.

The way the plan works is that for $70, you get $100 to spend on movies delivered to you via a digital card, or if you prefer, a physical one. The digital card allows you to buy tickets online, which it should be noted, would still be subject to the convenience fees associated with online ticket transactions. The physical card can be used to buy tickets online, or at the box office, where they wouldn’t incur a convenience fee.

Sinemia Limitless is a one-time payment that is valid for one year, so you’d want to make sure you spend that $100 within a year. After the year is up or after you’ve spent the $100, you can sign up again for the plan, but as it is not a subscription, there is no recurring payment. Additionally, those who are already Sinemia subscribers can add the new Limitless plan at any time rather than renewing their existing plan.

Unlike certain subscription plans that Sinemia and other companies offer, Sinemia Limitless allows you see any movie, at any theater, in any format, at any time. No blackout dates or restrictions on premium screenings. The other big differentiator is that you can purchase multiple tickets per day and you can use Sinemia Limitless to buy tickets for your family and friends.

This is an interesting value proposition from Sinemia that eschews the subscription model most theatergoing subscription services, including Sinemia, made their name on. Nowadays it seems like most forms of entertainment require some sort of subscription, a guarantee that your bank account will be a little bit smaller each month.

Some moviegoers are tired of the commitment that comes with subscriptions, and would rather just pay a chunk of money up front and that’s what Sinemia Limitless is offering. It’s essentially just you buying tickets in bulk at a discounted rate and for some people that may be exactly what they are looking for.

There is a simplicity to this plan in that there is no smartphone requirement, no checking in or guesswork about what movies you can and can’t see and when. It would also be a good option for people who want to see more movies but aren’t sure they will actually go and don’t want to commit to a subscription just yet.

Sinemia Limitless is one of the least risky offerings in the space right now for consumers, who will get their money’s worth as long as they use the $100 within a year, which considering you can bring guests shouldn't be difficult at all. The average ticket price rose to $9.11 last year so at that rate, Sinemia Limitless would get you about 11 tickets for $70, before any extra discounts at Sinemia partner theaters.

Sinemia still has quite a few subscription plans available and this newest offering just goes to show how all of these companies are trying things out and experimenting to see what works, what’s sustainable and what consumers are looking for. MoviePass has relaunched and is trying to pull itself back up and AMC Stubs A-List is flying high. If nothing else, Hollywood should be encouraged that people are trying to see more movies, even if they are trying to do it on the cheap.

You can check out Sinemia Limitless and the company’s other plans on its website. To see how fast you could blow through $100 worth of movies, take a look at our 2019 Release Schedule.

Read More

Sigourney Weaver And Ridley Scott Are Totally Into That Alien High School Play

Sigourney Weaver And Ridley Scott Are Totally Into That Alien High School Play

We’ve probably all seen a high school production on The Sound of Music and Grease, but taking on the classic 1979 sci-fi film Alien, now that’s the kind of creativity in school dramas we want to see! North Bergen High School in New Jersey put together the first production of Alien: The Play last week, which went absolutely viral online. The actress famously known as the lead heroine, Ripley has taken notice and is showing her support with these words:

It looked incredible. You put so much heart and soul into that and the alien, I must say, looked very real to me.

Imagine getting props from Sigourney Weaver for your high school drama performance? Amazing! The actress’ comments come from a video message that was recently post the the Alien franchise’s official Instagram account @AlienAnthology. Check it out:

Weaver sent her compliments, not only personally but from Aliens director James Cameron and the original screenwriter Walter Hill. The actress went out of her way to especially speak out about the production’s iteration of the alien. Just take a look at this amazing images from Twitter of the terrifying creature below:

This is unbelievable! It’s no wonder Sigourney Weaver has taken notice. The original director of the 1979 classic also decided to show his support too! Ridley Scott penned a letter to the New Jersey drama club with these words, via Deadline:

My hat comes off to all of you for your creativity, imagination and determination to produce such an ambitious show.

Ridley Scott’s letter also includes some encouraging words about how limitations can often produce the best results because imagination is at work. The filmmaker encouraged the students to continue implementing this kind of creativity into their bright futures, along with announcing his production company Scott Free would advance some financial help to an encore performance of the show.

Alien: The Play originally had a two-night run on March 19 and 22, but thanks to all this attention online and from the Alien actors and filmmakers, maybe the students will opt to keep the show going. Ridley Scott closed out his letter with a recommendation to tackle one of his other famous films, Gladiator next.

Adapting Alien into a play is a seriously genius idea and is a great way to high school students buying tickets and supporting local productions and showing their appreciation to this impactful film, which has paved the way for so many Alien sequels and impacted other films in the genre after its release.

Sigourney Weaver has been teaming back up with James Cameron, who she worked with for 1986’s

Aliens for Avatar 2 & 3. Ridley Scott reportedly has plans for another Alien movie, but it looks to still be in development. Their support for the high school production will certainly led to inspiration for other drama departments to think outside the box for their next spring production.

Read More

Should Wesley Snipes' Blade Really Return In The MCU?

Should Wesley Snipes' Blade Really Return In The MCU?

As Marvel's plans for Phase 4 officially remain under lock and key, rumors and speculation are running rampant about the brand's future plans for its current characters and plans for other characters who haven't been seen in a long time. The latest update on the latter alleges that Marvel has plans for a Blade return. This alleged film, which would be R-rated, is said to involve Wesley Snipes in some way.

Now there's a chance Marvel could have other plans for Wesley Snipes, but smart money says that if he's involved, it's probably so he can reprise his role as the title character. It's a bold choice given his inclusion would seemingly mean embracing the character's previous films and giving the world the fourth Blade film after over 15 years. Provided these discussions are currently underway, is bringing Wesley Snipes Blade to the MCU something that should happen?

To start, let's acknowledge that Wesley Snipes is in his mid 50s. Him being Blade now would look a lot different than when he first took on the role. Hell, it'd even look different than when he did Blade Trinity at 41. That's not to say he can't pull it off, but one would imagine if Marvel is seriously considering Snipes for Blade, it's because they aren't planning to have him back for long.

Because, let's face it, if Marvel was thinking about making a new Blade movie, it's a good bet it'd use a younger actor. Mahershala Ali already has a strong show of support from MCU fans, and is still in his early 40s. He's just one of the many popular actors that could take on the character, so it's not absolutely necessary that Wesley Snipes be tapped for this role.

Yet, there has been talk from Snipes and Kevin Feige both over the years, which does make it possible these talks are legitimate. Rumors are still just that, but the fact that Marvel Studios has supposedly shown some interest in bringing back Wesley Snipes to play Blade in the past does instill some confidence that there's a plan at play. If it's being discussed, surely there's an idea of how it would happen, right?

Which, in and of itself, is a strong supporting reason for why Snipes should return as Blade. Kevin Feige and Marvel Studios has had a strong track record to date in the MCU, so there's little reason to doubt they'd just up and drop the ball trying to do Blade with Wesley Snipes. After all, why search for another actor when you have the guy who played him in three films before ready and willing to make a comeback.

Well, there is one really big reason not to, and a lot of it is tied to Wesley Snipes on-set behavior during production on Blade: Trinity. There are multiple accounts of Snipes doing some wild stuff on set, one of which included requesting CGI being used to put him in scenes he didn't feel like doing.

Much wilder alleged stories can be found online, but it seemed clear to multiple people on set that Blade wasn't something Snipes wanted to be a part of anymore. People change, obviously, but it's a valid question whether there are those at Marvel who remember that whole incident and may have issues bringing the actor in and risking more behind-the-scenes drama on a high-budget feature.

One big strength in Snipes favor is that he's aged wonderfully, and it's not crazy to think an enhanced lifespan isn't a real-life super power he's capable of. Additionally, after seeing how Marvel de-aged Kurt Russell and Samuel L. Jackson, it's hard to believe what little work it would take to make Snipes look as close to how he looked the last time audiences saw the Dhampir in action.

Perhaps the question isn't why Marvel would want Wesley Snipes back as Blade, but more of a question as to what that would mean. Bringing Snipes back would presumably make Blade 1-3 canon in the MCU, which adds yet another franchise to marry to a very delicate ecosystem at the moment. Could the MCU weather bringing the first three Blade films into its shared universe without worrying about plot inconsistencies or other issues?

It also bears mention that while the character of Blade has been popular, the franchise thus far has not been a hit with critics. Blade II is seen as the high point, according to critic scores on Rotten Tomatoes, and Blade: Trinity's aggregate score makes X-Men: Apocalypse's score seem solid in comparison. None of the films have been critical successes, but the lowest point of this franchise has been pretty damn bad in the eyes of critics.

Absence can tend to make the heart grow fonder though, although it would be a question of why the Marvel universe has had zero mentions of vampires to this point if Blade has been around this whole time. Granted, that is changing as Sony just went into principal photography on Morbius pretty recently, although it remains to be seen how or if the character will be incorporated into the MCU.

If there was a time to make vampires a part of the MCU, Phase 4 seems like a time to do it. The future of the Asgardians and who will headline adventures related to them is potentially on the bubble if Chris Hemsworth exits, and Marvel has already shown a want to expand its universe more with the introduction of the Skrulls. Vampires would be a viable outlet, and wouldn't take a lot of work to incorporate.

There is one story element that Marvel Studios could be looking into, and it's one that admittedly feels like one that avoids a lot of the potential problems in bringing back Wesley Snipes' Blade. Snipes could be the supporting character in a feature that ultimately paves the way to introduce Fallon Grey, Blade's daughter, as the MCU's resident vampire hunter. It's a convenient way to sweep Blade's past under the rug, and also add more inclusivity to the MCU.

Ultimately the decision is Marvel Studios', and it will ultimately decide whether or not Wesley Snipes and the Blade franchise is worth incorporating into the MCU. Right now people probably have a lot of questions as to why, but many will ultimately trust Kevin Feige and those responsible if bringing the vampire hunter back is the right move.

Right now, all this Blade talk is just a rumor, but CinemaBlend will keep an eye out for updates and any developments especially as Marvel gears up to announce its plans for Phase 4 after Spider-Man: Far From Home. For more on Blade, read up on what recent superhero film director actually pitched an idea for a film not all that long ago.

Read More

Should Triple Frontier Get A Sequel? Let's Talk This Out

Should Triple Frontier Get A Sequel? Let's Talk This Out

Warning: spoilers for Netflix's Triple Frontier are present. If you haven't seen the film yet, bookmark this page and come back once you've done so.

At the end of J.C. Chandor's Triple Frontier, the events that transpired during the film are brought to a seemingly tidy end. But during that ending, there are a couple of key pieces of information that stand out as potential threads for a sequel. While any film can leave the door open for another installment of adventure, it's not always the best course of action to follow up with another escapade.

It's a complicated matter, because while Triple Frontier doesn't seem like the type of film to get a sequel, there's enough left hanging that would make for an intriguing follow up if it was done correctly. With that in mind, it's time to start delving into whether or not this action-drama should continue, or if stolen cash is best left where it lies. Let's start things off by discussing the ending of the film.

What Happens At The End Of Triple Frontier

After the heist that Oscar Isaac's Santiago, and the rest of his Triple Frontier team have undertaken, the film puts them through the ringer. A series of troubles and tribulations pressures the team into some bad decisions involving an overloaded helicopter, a farming community in the Andes, and a trek through a treacherous mountain range that leads to the ultimate run for the coast. In the end, only one member of the team is killed – Ben Affleck's Tom.

As a result, the surviving teammates donate their shares of the remaining money that didn't get lost in the Andes to Tom's family. Feeling guilty for his death, and wanting to provide for his family, each man tears up his paperwork to deposit their shares, and allows their banker to deposit it all into the same account. After which, everyone goes their separate ways, saying a somber but heartfelt goodbye.

Just as the film is ready to let Isaac and Charlie Hunnam's William ride off into their respective sunsets, with Santiago ready to reunite with his girlfriend / intel source Yovanna in Australia, William slips him a piece of paper with important information. That info happens to be the GPS co-ordinates to a spot where the team dumped a ton of cash in order to lighten their load. As Santiago walks into the crowd on a warm, tropical day, the film fades to black.

The Case For A Sequel

The continued adventures of the Triple Frontier team have two key components on their side: the fact that Santiago was given the co-ordinates with the express purpose of possibly recovering the money, and his intended reunion with Yovanna after the heist went sideways. So, with a potential second act in the saga that J.C. Chandor co-wrote and directed, there's already enough components here to make for a basic sequel.

What makes a second excursion to the Triple Frontier even more exciting is something that Yovanna said to Santiago as they parted mid-way through the film. After stealing the money from the infamous drug dealer that they were robbing, she tells Santiago that it's not just that particular dealer's money in their hands. There are others who threw their funds in with his, and they're going to come looking for every penny missing.

Keeping all of this in mind, there's one of two ways this could go. One scenario is that the Triple Frontier survivors could recover the money for their own needs, as it's tucked away in a nice and secret spot for them to make a lovely retirement fund out of. The other, more probable scenario, would see those other drug dealers coming back to demand their money be returned; leaving the crew to figure out how to score the remaining $5 million that was donated to Tom's family. Both sound good, but are they enough to go forward? Let's look at the other side of the coin.

The Case Against A Sequel

While there's two good concepts for a Triple Frontier followup, there's still a solid case for not going ahead with any sort of return trips to the danger visited upon its protagonists. And that case comes from the fact that after all of the action that Santiago and his team had seen in Triple Frontier, it's not very likely that they would want to live through that sort of thing again. It all comes down to the approach to the original film, and how well it would mesh with any potential sequel.

Honestly, the grounded approach that J.C. Chandor and co-writer Mark Boal took in telling the story of Triple Frontier feels like it'd be at home with the ambiguity in the film's final reel. It's a movie that doesn't absolutely need to prolong itself beyond where it's already been, because the overriding lesson seems to be that if these soldiers hadn't pushed their luck as far as they had, they'd all be alive and richer than their wildest dreams.

In service of that message, another round of Triple Frontier action would seem like a slap in the face of that first round's overarching message. And as any fan of '80s action dramas will tell you, not every series has the luck that Rambo did; and even if it did, there's always the chance that things will devolve into mindless propaganda before all is said and done.

Where We Stand

Triple Frontier is a film that could very easily lend itself to a sequel, and that sequel could be really good. There's room for improvement with the foundation of the original, and the hooks are clear enough to bring the series into a reasonable future. But, even with the ideas presented, there's a risk that such a sequel would be a really bad idea. The result of this whole exercise is a pro sequel outcome, so long as those involved keep their heads on straight during development. In fact, bringing in J.C. Chandor and Mark Boal would be required at this point, as Chandor knows the characters and Boal knows how to bring the action.

But, of course, we'd like to know what you, the audience, think about this proposition. Using the poll below, and the comments section as well, let us know if you'd want another round of Triple Frontier in your Netflix queue. And, if you're looking for another movie to scratch that action itch, take a look at 2019's release schedule and see what's on the horizon!

Read More

Should The John Wick Franchise End With Chapter 4?

Should The John Wick Franchise End With Chapter 4?

Warning: SPOILERS for John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum are in play. If you haven’t seen the film yet, bookmark this page and come back once you’ve caught up.

If anyone had doubts about the John Wick franchise’s ability to print money at the box office, this weekend’s stellar performance of John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum should be enough to put them to the side. Which is perfect, because as The Bowery King (Laurence Fishburne) and John Wick (Keanu Reeves) have now sworn to basically team up to take down The High Table, there’s going to be room for at least one more sequel that’ll keep the franchise going.

Of course, it’s moments like these where a franchise really has to take stock in where it is and where it’s going. With a solid story and tighter action so far, the John Wick story seems to be hitting its stride. However, how long can it keep running before it’s backed against the wall, with one too many plot assassins to contend with?

We’ve seen it with almost any iconic series that’s made it to the trilogy marker, and since John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum represents exactly that, that question should be asked right now: should the hypothetical John Wick: Chapter 4 should be the final installment of the well-favored series of action films that has reinvented Keanu Reeves’ career as an stuntacular superstar? Or is this an overreaction that seems rather premature? Let’s look at the pros and cons together and discuss.

Yes, John Wick: Chapter 4 Should Be The Finale

With The Bowery King and John Wick’s alliance serving the purpose of waging all-out war with The High Table, it could act as a proper and fitting end to the John Wick saga. For so long, this organization has ruled over the world of assassins with a strict code of rules that seems to reap a fresh current of blood with the passing of each film.

So having that expectation set for whatever John Wick: Chapter 4 may be titled, it feels like the great game should end with a blaze of glory. Maybe the film incorporates a time jump forward rather than continue right after the previous chapter, and sees John and The Bowery King worn down from an extended period of street warfare. Then, out of nowhere, a cunning strategy, some new alliances and a Hail Mary to end all desperation moves send the John Wick series out in a blaze of glory.

Though director Chad Stahelski has gone on record as stating he could make John Wick movies for the rest of his career, the story naturally has to end at some point. Why not make it the point where John takes the battle to his former overlords, shatters their grasp of power and either dies a hero or lives as a hermit, with his dog as his only companion?

No, John Wick: Chapter 4 Should Be The Door To Something Bigger

On the other hand, an all-out war with The High Table is something that the John Wick series could definitely extend into at least two, maybe even three films. With all of the intricacies in the code of assassins, and the expansion of the lore that John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum added to the picture, things could just be getting started.

In fact, one of the John Wick franchise’s strengths is the fact that with each entry, there’s just enough lore to keep your mind occupied and enough action to satisfy the part of the audience that craves spectacle. Nothing is over explained, and everything seems to happen in its own due time, without too much retconning.

With no shortage of story, and an eager cast and crew ready to keep John Wick on his slow and steady descent into High Table Hell, the series doesn’t need to rush itself into a finite end. As long as there’s an exit strategy in mind, the John Wick series could continue for as long as it wanted. Maybe it could even go into a ninth installment, with just enough films to match the number of circles Hell itself contains.

Where We Stand On The Issue

While it’s tempting to try and walk away from the table while the streak is hot, it does feel like John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum sets up too big of a future story path to end with just one film. That’s not exactly an invitation to continue aimlessly over the course of unchecked sequel growth, as there should be a definite endgame for John’s quest to become a free man yet again.

Some franchises have amazing staying power, and if there are resources and enthusiasm to continue down a certain story path, then you really can’t keep a good franchise down. John Wick’s vengeance deserves to be seen, heard and felt in its due course of time, and rushing things would only water down the quality work we’ve seen thus far.

It’s not often you’ll see a franchise that builds such a compelling case for its own continuation as John Wick does. You really don’t know what’s going to come next, and the way the story has been told up until this point is not only deliberate in its pacing, it’s also still at a point where there’s unlimited potential for fun twists and turns.

This weekend’s box office result is only further proof that the viewing public is still in love with the series that started with a reluctant, but vengeful hero who’s now sworn to rip apart the world that’s only grown to torment him more as time goes on. Each time they’ve confronted him, The High Table has thought they’d cracked John Wick’s resolve, only to see him find a new way to reduce the competition’s numbers.

Rome wasn’t built in a day, nor was it destroyed in that short a span of time. So if John Wick needs a couple passages past John Wick: Chapter 4, who can argue with that? Actually, if you’re looking to continue this discussion, you could, dear reader.

Now that we’ve talked out both sides to the John Wick: Chapter 4 issue, it’s your turn to get involved. Take our poll below, and tell us in the comments section about whether you feel the John Wick series has run its course or if it’s just getting started.

John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum is in theaters now.

Read More

Should Robert Downey Jr. Get An Oscar Nomination For Avengers: Endgame?

Should Robert Downey Jr. Get An Oscar Nomination For Avengers: Endgame?

Mild spoilers ahead.

The name "Stark" was synonymous with "hero" last week, from Avengers: Endgame to Game of Thrones. For Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark, Endgame marked his crowning achievement in the Marvel Cinematic Universe he helped found with Iron Man back in 2008. RDJ's performance, and career as a whole, have led some to push his name forward for very early Oscars 2020 consideration.

Robert Downey Jr., now 54, has had a fascinating career with major highs and extreme lows. He does have two previous Oscar nominations under his belt -- Best Actor for Chaplin in 1993 and Best Supporting Actor for Tropic Thunder in 2009 -- but no wins so far.

After Marvel's Black Panther was nominated for Best Picture last year, the door seems open for serious consideration of a superhero star for an acting award. If that's going to happen for someone (after Heath Ledger's posthumous win for The Dark Knight), why not RDJ?

It's early to be putting Robert Downey Jr.'s name out there for Oscars consideration without knowing the rest of the potential competition in 2019, but several fans are already on board.

Some fans are already pushing for Robert Downey Jr. to not just be nominated for an Oscar, but to definitely win:

Marvel is busy promoting Avengers: Endgame -- as if it needs any marketing to sell tickets -- and highlighting praise for the performances:

The Russo Brothers, who directed both Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame, also seem down with a Downey Oscar win. Joe Russo didn't specify any moments from Endgame in particular when talking to the Washington Post, but he praised RDJ's entire career:

His cumulative body of work from these movies is staggering. If you look at the work over just even the last four [Marvel] films he’s done, it’s phenomenal. ... He deserves an Oscar perhaps more than anyone in the last 40 years because of the way that he has motivated popular culture.

That sounds dangerously close to the dreaded popular movie Oscar, so let's just stick to the idea of awarding Robert Downey Jr. for his performance. The man has a presence! He has carried this multi-billion-dollar franchise on his charismatic back. He has also shown he can believably carry Tony Stark from one-liners to deep emotion -- making us laugh, cry, or both depending on what he wants to deliver with a snap of his fingers.

Anthony Russo recently said Robert Downey Jr. had mixed emotions about Tony Stark's storyline in Endgame, but ultimately accepted it. It doesn't require spoilers to say Tony was just one of many characters to face massive changes in Endgame. We knew going in that Avengers 4 would shake up the MCU, and that certainly happened.

Right now, Avengers: Endgame is busy taking everyone's money. It is set to pass $2 billion this weekend, possibly on the way to beating Avatar. But even if it doesn't, it's still one of the biggest pop culture events of our lifetimes.

We just have to see if the buzz can carry through to the end of 2019, when the Oscar talk really heats up. Usually major movies open in late fall, with more dramatic thespian roles getting eyed for Academy Awards. But Black Panther stayed on the radar until Oscar night, so there's no reason why RDJ's fans can't at least hope that he is remembered by the Academy when nominations are announced in early 2020.

Do you think RDJ deserves an Oscar nomination for Avengers: Endgame? Vote in the poll below.

Read More

Should New Mutants Get A Streaming Release Rather Than A Theatrical One?

Should New Mutants Get A Streaming Release Rather Than A Theatrical One?

After all of the hoopla, spectacle, and growing pains, The Walt Disney Company and 21st Century Fox have merged, as expected. Among all of the questions and concerns about the various properties that are now shared between these united parties, the status of director Josh Boone’s The New Mutants is one that keeps being raised by fans and cast members alike. You could sense the frustration in recent remarks made by one of the film’s stars, and despite the further reports that none of the reshoots planned to revise The New Mutants seem to have taken place, the film still has a release date set for August 2nd, but the question remains: Where will it be housed?

Now unless those reshoots are going to happen at some point in the near future, it feels like we’re going to be told one of two things in the near future. It looks like either The New Mutants will shift its release date yet again, or if the persistent rumors have anything to say, the project might find itself shipped off to a streaming service for distribution.

But is that the best way to release this film, which has been in the works for a couple of years now? Either prospect seems in the cards, so why don’t we lay down the case for either a theatrical or streaming release of The New Mutants? Before we get too far into the weeds though, let’s discuss something that might effect this decision to an important degree, as it will more than likely factor into the decision ahead.

What May Be The Deciding Factor

One event may determine just what happens to The New Mutants, in terms of its release. That happening is none other than this summer’s release of Dark Phoenix. Much like The New Mutants, director Simon Kinberg’s swan song for Professor Xavier and his school of gifted youngsters has been dancing around the release calendar before and during the Disney/Fox merger. If their initial release dates had stuck, we would have seen The New Mutants released last April, with Dark Phoenix unveiling itself this past November. But after a big shake-up in the Fox release date calendar, both films found themselves pushed to 2019’s release slate. Which certainly hasn’t isn't a gigantic vote of confidence for either film.

With Dark Phoenix taking an earlier release date of June 7th, it’s going to be the first of the two out of the gate in the post-Disney/Fox merger world. So there’s some added pressure on the X-Men movie to deliver, as whatever the box office fate of this film tends to be, it could even influence whether or not The New Mutants will see the light of day at all. It’s not a bad thing to consider either, as if the latest mutant adjacent flavored spinoff looks like it’s going to take a dive in theaters, there’s convenient alternatives to traditional theatrical means that would put the film out for the world to enjoy. Alternatives that major studios like Paramount have taken when films like The Cloverfield Paradox were hanging in the balance of whether they were considered commercially viable or not. But let’s dig further into just why a theatrical release for The New Mutants could be worth the while.

The Case For A Theatrical Release

While The New Mutants and Dark Phoenix seem to be in the same boat, there’s still hope for the edgier property to break out of the negative buzz. Come to think of it, if The New Mutants goes through the reshoots meant to make it a potentially scarier R-rated film, that’s another qualification that’d help put the film on the path to better fortunes. Part of Dark Phoenix’s problem is that it’s following in the footsteps of its franchise predecessor, X-Men: Apocalypse. This newer class of spun-off mutants doesn’t have that same baggage, with all of the freedom to be its own thing; if it capitalizes on that possibility to the fullest, it could be a hit.

Of course, in order for this to happen, The New Mutants may need to reassign itself to a new release date in the future. More than likely, the studio could pencil the film in for one of the untitled release slots that Fox put aside for Marvel projects to be determined in 2020. This comes with the added bonus of giving Disney a chance to start testing out its release strategy between Fox's Marvel projects and the studio's own internal Marvel Studios brand. Disney could potentially get its feet wet with the X-Men by ushering out this theatrical release.

The New Mutants is an opportunity to try something new when it comes to the treatment of one of Fox’s last Marvel franchise before its acquisition. Those sorts of opportunities have served the studio well in the past, as Deadpool took similar risks in content and release strategy and went on to become one of the biggest Marvel hits outside of the MCU. Of course, this puts a lot of eggs in the basket of The New Mutants being a theatrical success. Let’s now take a look at why a streaming release might serve the film better.

The Case For A Streaming Release

It’s true that The New Mutants is an opportunity for Fox and Disney to try out a new franchise and the baggage surrounding the release of Dark Phoenix potentially limited to that film’s fortunes alone. We're getting into a lot of ifs here, but if that turns out to be the case, then a theatrical release for The New Mutants could be dead in the water. Which means debuting the film on a streaming service just might be the best bet for Disney and Fox to give the project its due, and release it instead of cutting it off from audiences completely. Whether or not the movie is good, a streaming service could be a less splashy way to get eyeballs to watch it and still make some money in the process.

Considering we haven’t seen any real material from The New Mutants, and only one trailer exists for the film, it seems that the spending decision pertaining to marketing the film has its parent studios in doubt. Were The New Mutants to jump to a streaming services such as Hulu or Disney+, the advertising spend wouldn’t have to be nearly as great as a theatrical release would be. In actuality, Disney could do the same thing Paramount did with The Cloverfield Paradox, and announce the film’s release date on the exact day the film will drop. Or, if the studio really wanted to put some finesse into their pitch, it could make a quick announcement, cut a new trailer, and slot the film’s debut into either platform’s monthly refresh.

Perhaps the greatest asset that makes The New Mutants’ potential streaming release the best course of action is the fact that no matter when Disney decides to release the film, it doesn’t have to worry about competing with any of the already programmed films set to launch from the their individual label or the Fox label for that matter. Putting this project into a new sort orbit that allows it the latitude to be released at any point without conflicting with any pre-existing gameplay on Disney or Fox’s end allows director Josh Boone the time he seems to need to get the cast together, conduct his reshoots, and put forth the best version of the film that can be made.

Where I Stand

Weighing out the pros and cons for both theatrical and streaming release options for The New Mutants, it feels like the better option for the film’s success is to give it a home on a streaming service, more than likely on the Hulu platform. This is an atypical film that doesn’t conform to the same sort of mold that the X-Men series does, despite coming from the same source universe. Marketing the film for a theatrical release could be a bit of a nightmare at this point, and even with another release date bump, the movie would still be on a tighter overall timeline to be completed for theatrical exhibition.

Meanwhile, with the freedom to launch whenever the studio damn well pleases, as well as the fact that a streaming film can debut faster than one set for theaters, there’s a lot of pressure taken off of The New Mutants’ ability to perform to traditional standards of success. It also releases this project to the public, while ensuring that the money used to make it wasn’t wasted. Even if the reshoots were cancelled altogether, and the current cut of the film was workshopped into something resembling a final cut, it’s a lower stakes game to send that finished product to Hulu or even Disney+ if it decides to get less family-friendly.

But, of course, there’s one more thing to consider when it comes to The New Mutants’ fate: the will of the people. Using the poll below, let us know if you think that these new mutant adventures should still go to the cinema, or if they should jump into the world of streaming content.

The New Mutants is currently on track for release on August 2, 2019, and will remain so according to the powers that be. Should that change for any reason, we'll break the news as we find it. in the meantime, you can take a look at what the Marvel Cinematic Universe has planned for Phases 3 and 4, in our handy guide to upcoming Marvel movies.

Read More

Should More Disney Live-Action Movies Like Aladdin Get Sequels?

Should More Disney Live-Action Movies Like Aladdin Get Sequels?

Proving that all the handwringing over the look of Will Smith’s Genie was overblown, Aladdin proved shining, shimmering, splendid at the box office over Memorial Day weekend, taking the top spot on the domestic charts. It is just the latest example of the financial success Disney has had in recent years with adapting its beloved animated classics to live-action blockbuster films.

The formula that has made these films such a success for Disney (minus a few underperformers), has also been the source of the most consistent and prevalent criticism levied against these remakes. The critics often mention these live-action remakes are too safe and lack originality, often hewing as close as possible to the animated films upon which they are based.

Those criticisms seem unlikely to abate anytime soon with Aladdin just one of the many live-action remakes Disney has on the calendar this year. The more outside-the-box Dumbo began the year, but there is still the Disney+ bound Lady and the Tramp, as well as theatrical releases Maleficent: Mistress of Evil and The Lion King, the latter of which audiences would be forgiven for assuming is just a shot-for-shot remake of the 1994 zenith of Disney’s renaissance.

It is Maleficent 2 however that raises an interesting possibility and path forward that is worth talking and wondering about. Namely, should more Disney live-action movies like Aladdin get sequels?

The criticized lack of originality and sequels may not seem connected, but there are several reasons to think that Disney would be well served by turning some of its live-action reimaginings into film series. Disney is adapting its animated movies to live-action at a fairly rapid rate and I have wondered in the past what the studio will do once it exhausts the most beloved titles. These films are a big part of Disney’s theatrical strategy at the moment, alongside Star Wars, the MCU and Pixar/Walt Disney Animation. I'd assume the studio won’t want that revenue stream to dry up.

Giving films like Aladdin sequels would address this concern by providing Disney with more brand name titles to fill out its calendar for years to come. Sequels could also have the added benefit of the kind of risk-taking the live-action remakes to date have been criticized for lacking. To be clear, any perceived lack of originality hasn’t hurt these films at the box office, but I think it’s fair to say we’d all like to see Disney take some risks as well.

Whether it be theatrically or in its theme parks, Disney as it currently stands really values established brands and recognizable characters that audiences have already invested in. Sequels to Aladdin or The Lion King would bear all those crucial elements and could build off their predecessor’s success. They would have the benefit of nostalgic sentiment for the properties, while still having the creative latitude to innovate and tell a new story.

If you take something like Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle or Cobra Kai as an example, familiar brand names and characters and a powerful nostalgic quality can go a long way towards getting audiences to check out something new and unique. Sure, Aladdin 2 or Cinderella 2 would probably share more in common with their predecessors than those two titles resemble their forebears, but you get the idea.

It’s true that Disney has already made sequels to many of its animated classics that could be theoretically be directly adapted, but those titles were generally straight-to-DVD and not always of the highest quality. Diverging too far from a beloved movie like Aladdin might result in major backlash, but I'm guessing not too many people are going to be heartbroken if Return of Jafar isn’t faithfully adapted or a sequel goes in an entirely different direction.

That gives Disney the kind of creative freedom to tell better follow-up stories to their iconic properties that are inventive and new while still playing to nostalgia.

In addition to allowing for new storytelling, sequels would also draw fewer comparisons to the original animated films because they wouldn’t be direct adaptations. Whenever something cherished is adapted to another medium, those things that are lost and changed in the translation are deeply lamented by fans. Sequels to Disney’s live-action remakes would have no such hill to climb.

So, sequels to Disney live-action remakes like Aladdin would fall into an advantageous middle ground that would confer the nostalgia of an established, beloved property as well as allowing for the kind of creativity many critics of Disney’s reimaginings want to see.

This is all theoretical, though, and alongside the surmised benefits of these sequels are a slew of potential pitfalls that could make such pursuits rather tricky.

The biggest problem is that originality does not equal quality. The live-action remakes that have arguably skewed the furthest from their animated counterparts, Alice in Wonderland and Maleficent, are also two of the least memorable adaptations. These films were successes at the box office to be sure, but they aren’t held up as Disney’s best reimaginings. Anecdotally, it seems to me that among many Disney fans Maleficent especially is disliked for how far it strayed from Sleeping Beauty by fundamentally altering the story.

Audiences hold these stories too dearly and any sequel that takes the story and the characters in a direction they don’t approve of might get rejected at the box office. Then again, sequels aren’t the original animated movies so perhaps audiences will be a little more open and forgiving than they otherwise would.

The other knock against going the sequel route with Disney’s live-action remakes is that it is basically an unproven formula at the moment. If you don’t count 2000’s 102 Dalmatians, which I don’t, the only modern sequel to one of Disney’s live-action remakes is 2016’s Alice Through the Looking Glass. That sequel was critically loathed and didn’t even crack $300 million worldwide when Alice in Wonderland made over $1 billion.

That’s a small sample size though and just because it hasn’t really worked doesn’t mean it won’t. We should find out eventually because The Jungle Book from 2016 will be getting a sequel. Jungle Book 2 will go a long way towards testing the efficacy of giving sequels to these live-action reimaginings.

After that who knows? Despite its tremendous box office, Beauty and the Beast does not look like it will be getting a sequel, even though it was once considered and Emma Watson seems down for one. If I had to put money on it, I’d guess The Lion King has the best shot at getting a sequel after Jungle Book.

Even without seeing it, that movie is bound to do boffo business and seems like it would have more interesting directions to go in a sequel as opposed to something like Cinderella’s pure happily ever after ending. Aladdin could also be an interesting choice with plenty of storytelling opportunities raised by the first film and mythology to delve into.

So there are some big theoretical benefits to Disney giving sequels to its live-action remakes, but those sequels come with big question marks and a risk of failure. Ultimately, the best approach, at least s it seems to me, would be the one Pixar took with the Toy Story franchise. Toy Story 3 was the last movie until the team at Pixar had a great story they wanted to tell and that became Toy Story 4. Disney should adopt that methodology and only give sequels to those films that are ripe for it, where there is a sequel in need of telling.

Aladdin is now playing. Make sure you know what ticket to buy before seeing it and after that you can look forward to The Lion King on July 19. Keep an eye on our guide for all of Disney’s upcoming live-action movies.

Read More