That's a budget typically reserved for sequels to proven juggernauts the previous two live-action takes on Pan hardly inspire that level of confidence.
Add to this the fact that the film carred a 150 million dollar budget - some 50 million dollars more than Cinderella. It sets itself out apart from earlier installments visually, resulting in something that was only recognizable by name.
Pan, on the other hand, is more of a lone wolf. Talk about a win-win scenario.Ĭinderella taps into the collective imagery that defines earlier takes on the classic story. Even disregarding the glowing reviews, Cinderella would have likely still found an audience if only for the 8-minute short featuring characters from Frozen - a movie that seems to be forever ingrained on everyone's mind (willfully or not). Critics and audiences seemed to think so too. The cards seemed stacked against the filmmakers from the starts, which is why it's surprising that Kenneth Brannagh's film is so unexpectedly touching, visually lush and, at the very least, harmless. I questioned the relevance of retelling of the Cinderella story, particularly for audiences already familiar with the classic animated film. Like many, I found myself feeling hesitant at first. Hot off the coin generated via Tim Burton’s Alice and 2014's Maleficent, Disney’s decision to make a live-action version of its 1950 animated film is not surprising. Let’s take a look at a few of the possible reasons why.
Indeed, Cinderella was about a massive a success as Pan was a failure. And no, we're not just talking simple winners and losers here. For reasons we'll get into, the girl with the glass slippers found her way to a bank-breaking happy ending, while the boy who could not grow up found himself with insufficient pixie dust to take flight.
However, the reception, not to mention the box office, make it clear that not all magic is created equal. 2015 saw two live action reboots of familiar and beloved children stories - Cinderella and P an.
0 kommentar(er)
