Of course, you don't need me to tell you how popular The Lion King remains or how big of a deal a live-action version would be. Oh, and it sold 32 million copies during its initial VHS run, which is still a record.

And that means they can make a live-action adaptation of Dumbo (coming soon from Tim Burton), a live-action adaptation of Beauty and the Beast (coming soon from Bill Condon), a live-action take on Winnie the Pooh (coming soon from Alex Ross), as well as the planned adaptation of Mulan and the upcoming Pete's Dragon and Peter Pan movies.Īdjusted for inflation, it remains the third-biggest Disney release ever behind Snow White, 101 Dalmatians, and Star Wars: The Force Awakens. With this entry in Disney's newest sub-genre, they have now proven that they can offer the same 'live-action' adaptation treatment (live action in terms of using animation to create the illusion of a flesh-and-blood, non-animated drama) to every single one of their 55 animated features if they so chose. And for the record, I am aware that The Jungle Book is basically an animated film, but it's being treated as a live-action movie.

But The Jungle Book is almost entirely populated by animal characters, dazzlingly rendered and seamlessly integrated into what is supposed to be a 'live action' narrative that takes place in a wholly artificial environment.

Alice in Wonderland (a sequel to the 1951 animated film), Oz: The Great and Powerful (yes, I know The Wizard of Oz wasn't a Disney film, but humor me), Maleficent (a prequel/reimagining to/of Sleeping Beauty), and Cinderella (a straight-up retelling of the story) were films that featured human characters as the prime attractions.

The jungle book 1994 box office