In 2016, Disney broke the box office record for highest studio gross in a calendar year, just barely passing over into the $3 billion range. With Mary Poppins Returns opening this weekend, Disney is likely to pass the $3 billion dollar mark again, raising the bar they set just two years ago. It’s true, 2018 has been a massively successful year for Disney (you know you’re doing well when your Star Wars summer blockbuster is only your fifth highest grossing film of the year). But 2019 could be an even bigger year for Disney. With two official MCU installments, two highly-anticipated animated sequels, Star Wars: Episode IX, and three live-action remakes of some of their most beloved animated classics, Disney might just top themselves again. So before we ring in the new year and bow down to our multimedia overlord, I am going to countdown their 2019 slate, ranking them from least anticipated to most anticipated.

11. Artemis Fowl
Look, I have nothing against Artemis Fowl. I just… don’t really get it. I never hopped onto the Eoin Colfer train when everyone else did, and the teaser trailer looks unfavorably reminiscent of some of more recent high-budget, CGI-packed flops (The Nutcracker and the Four Realms, A Wrinkle in Time). Maybe fans of the book series will find this interesting, but to me it looks pretty skippable. I bet you didn’t even know Disney was making this one. 🍿

Release Date: 8/9/19

10. Frozen 2
Didn’t get enough dorky snowtime adventures with Frozen? You’re in luck! Frozen 2 comes to theaters next year and I am less than thrilled. Disney’s market saturation technique following the success of Frozen has made the film inescapable for the last half a decade… and yes, it came out five years ago. Without any teaser trailer to look at, it’s pretty hard to predict the quality of the film, but considering the fact that I didn’t like Frozen, I don’t have much faith in the sequel. 🍿

Release Date: 11/22/19

9. Aladdin
Disney’s recent track record with their line of live-action remakes has been nothing short of shoddy. The Jungle Book was an interesting departure, but Beauty and the Beast was a slog. Aladdin could be of either persuasion. The teaser trailer left me underwhelmed, and the animated Aladdin has never been a top-tier Disney film for me. Maybe Aladdin will prove me wrong, but even if it sucks, Disney will still make a ton of money. 🍿🍿

Release Date: 5/24/19

8. Penguins
This one sort of doesn’t count. The latest in the Disneynature franchise of family-friendly nature documentaries, Penguins looks… fine. It will have some nice cinematography and some B-list celebrity doing the narration, but at the end of the day it’s just a discount BBC special. Hopefully Disney’s acquisition of Fox (which includes National Geographic) will boost the quality and scope of their educational and nature programming in the future. 🍿🍿

Release Date: 4/17/19

7. Dumbo
Opening in March, Dumbo will be the first live-action remake from Disney next year. From the first trailer, it seems like Dumbo will be a narrative departure from the animated version, packed with breathtaking visual effects. Its stellar cast (including Michael Keaton, Colin Farrell, and Danny Devito) is surely a plus, and the fact that it could be Tim Burton’s best movie in almost a decade is certainly intriguing. While it’s not likely to be one of my favorites of the year, it could stand out as an early treat during what are traditionally considered “dump months.” 🍿🍿🍿

Release Date: 3/29/19

6. The Lion King
It’s unclear how different The Lion King will be from the animated original, but even if it’s a carbon copy, it will probably still be good. The visual effects look on par with The Jungle Book (also directed by Jon Favreau), if not better. The cast (which features Donald Glover Beyonce, Seth Rogen, Billy Eichner, and John Oliver) is superb. I mean, what could be bad about Donald Glover and Beyonce singing some of Disney’s most classic songs? Be prepared (haha) for The Lion King to rule the box office and the Billboard charts next year. 🍿🍿🍿

Release Date: 7/19/19

5. Spider-Man: Far From Home
Okay, so this technically isn’t Disney. It’s Sony and Marvel Studios, but Disney owns Marvel Studios so… I’m including it. Tom Holland, Michael Keaton, and Zendaya have all been tapped to reprise their roles from the last film, while Jake Gyllenhaal joins the cast as main villain Mysterio. It will likely be the least compelling of Marvel’s 2019 releases (of which there are three), but if this is anything like the last one, it should be a fun, action-packed palate cleanser following what will likely be a brutal Avengers outing three months earlier. 🍿🍿🍿🍿

4. Toy Story 4
I know it seems like blasphemy to put this anywhere other than number one, but I’ll just say it: I’m skeptical. The mere idea of another Toy Story movie makes me cringe, and the teaser trailer (featuring the living spork) didn’t persuade me otherwise. The second teaser, which featured two new characters voiced by Key and Peele, was actually really fun, but it still feels dangerous to tack on another film to this undisputedly fantastic trilogy. The original Toy Story is one of the landmark films of the last fifty years. Toy Story 2 is a worthy sequel, and Toy Story 3 is a generation-defining masterpiece. Maybe I’m clinging too hard to the past, but Toy Story 3 has always felt like the perfect ending to me. For Toy Story 4 to be worth it, it has to be really, really good. Buy hey, maybe it will be. 🍿🍿🍿🍿

Release Date: 6/21/19

3. Captain Marvel
The MCU’s first female-led film looks amazing. Brie Larson will star as the titular character alongside Jude Law and MCU stalwart Samuel L. Jackson (sans eyepatch). Guardians of the Galaxy actors Lee Pace and Djimon Hounsou (who portrayed the villains Ronan the Accusers and Korath respectively) will be reprising their roles, due to the fact that Captain Marvel is set before the events of Guardians (where both characters were killed). Barring some horrible miscalculation, Captain Marvel is shaping up to be a major event film. It’s unlikely to generate the same buzz that Black Panther did earlier this year, but anything is possible. My biggest hope is that the film does well enough to persuade Disney and Marvel Studios to produce more female-led films, both in the MCU and otherwise. 🍿🍿🍿🍿

Release Date: 3/8/19

2. Star Wars: Episode IX
There haven’t been any posters, trailers, teasers, or even a title to base this analysis on. And yet, it’s my second most anticipated Disney film of 2019. J. J. Abrams returns to the franchise after handing over the reigns to Rian Johnson for The Last Jedi. The final chapter (for now?) in the Skywalker saga has the possibility to be one of the most epic and exciting movies of the decade, let alone the year.. There will, of course, be a lot of talk over where the franchise will go next, but I’m just excited to hang out with Rey, Kylo, Finn, and Poe again. The stunning visual effects, emotive performances, and sense of grandeur of Force Awakens and Last Jedi are bound to be repeated in Episode IX. As long as Abrams doesn’t copy-and-paste a previous Star Wars entry into the plot of the film (like he did for Force Awakens), I think it will be worth the wait. 🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿

Release Date: 12/20/19

1. Avengers: Endgame

2015 saw Disney release Avengers: Age of Ultron and Star Wars: The Force Awakens: two perfectly good movies in my opinion. But if you had told me back then that an Avengers film would be more anticipated and, possibly, more financially successful than a new Star Wars entry, I would have been shocked. But here we are three years later, coming off the immense success of Infinity War, and it’s hard to imagine Avengers: Endgame not being the biggest film in the world. I think Endgame and Episode IX are probably running neck-and-neck when it comes to box office, but Marvel currently sits at the peak of the cultural zeitgeist, unrivaled. Star Wars is no longer the franchise of the era; that title belongs to the MCU. Every superhero fan (a title that is no longer relegated to the “nerdy” kids in the comic shop) is waiting with baited breath to see how Marvel will seize their moment. Avengers: Endgame is the culmination of twenty-one interconnected fantasy epics, and that culmination is shaping up to be the mother of them all. If the reaction to Infinity War is any indication, Endgame will likely be the most talked-about movie of 2019. And boy am I excited to talk about it. 🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿

Release Date: 4/26/19

Netflix has been consistently releasing original feature films since 2015, when their first film, Beasts of No Nation, premiered on the service. But Netflix has never really been a reliable place for quality original films. Critical failures like The Ridiculous Six and Bright have marred Netflix’s reputation among cinephiles, despite having strong viewership on the service. However, the idea that “Netflix movie = trash” may be changing. This season’s crop of Netflix originals seem to be of a different brand. Mainly, they’re pretty good. While in the past, Netflix has appeared to release their films willy-nilly, with little thought as to where they sit in the broader, industry-wide release schedule, 2018 has seen them adopt a specific and effective formula. This year Netflix released trashy movies in the dump months (The Cloverfield Paradox, Mute, When We First Met), crowd-pleasers in the summer (To All The Boys I’ve Loved Before, Set It Up), and now prestige films during Oscar season (Roma, The Other Side of the Wind, The Ballad of Buster Scruggs). This release schedule mimics that of large, theatrically-releasing studios like Warner Brothers or Paramount. Additionally, Netflix’s fall awards contenders have all snagged short theatrical runs in New York and Los Angeles. While this is likely just Netflix’s attempt to fulfil the Academy’s eligibility rules (a narrative feature must play for seven consecutive days at a Los Angeles County theater to be eligible for the Oscars), these theatrical runs may hint towards a change in Netflix’s anti-theater mentality.

In New York City, a number of Netflix produced/distributed films enjoyed one-week engagements at IFC Center on West 4th Street. Films like Sara Colangelo’s The Kindergarten Teacher and Orson Welles’ The Other Side of the Wind came and went alongside recent IFC tentpoles like Paul Dano’s Wildife and Ali Abbasi’s Border. However, it has not been easy for Netflix to get their films onto the big screen. Alamo Drafthouse has (quite publicly) declined to show Oscar-front runner Roma in any of their locations later this year. Netflix was reportedly asking for Roma to receive a four-week run in 70mm starting in late November, one of the busiest seasons for movie theaters. Roma will also be available to stream on Netflix just a week after its theatrical release, making it difficult for any theater to justify an extended run. The theater’s assumption is that a large portion of the audience already has a Netflix subscription, and will likely opt to stay at home if given the option. Ultimately, Landmark and IFC Center will be releasing the film in Los Angeles and New York City, though not all in 70mm like Netflix had hoped. But with Netflix’s day-and-date release windowing and their aggressive logistical demands, it is unclear how successful they will be with theater chains in the future. That is, unless they had their own.

This move would not come as a shock, especially considering that Netflix was in talks to buy the Landmark Theater chain from Mark Cuban earlier this year. The deal didn’t come to fruition, as Netflix deemed the price tag too high, but that doesn’t mean they won’t try a similar move some time in the future. 2018 has seen Netflix release 37 original dramas, 33 comedies, 16 documentaries, and 3 variety specials (like Springsteen on Broadway and Derren Brown: Sacrifice). When you add it all up, Netflix produced 89 original feature-length films in 2018, more than enough to stuff their theaters year-round. Cinema historians are screaming at me right now, “What about the law?! What about US vs. Paramount?!” And those overanxious nerds are right. There is a question surrounding the legality of such a move. Since 1948, major studios have been unable to own brick-and-mortar theaters due to the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. In that case, the court decided that the ownership of theater chains by studios “constituted anti-competitive and monopolistic trade practices.” The bottom line was that the studios were forced to sell off their property and stop the practice of block-booking, which required theaters to book a studio’s entire film slate almost a year in advance. To this day, no studio is legally permitted to own a brick-and-mortar theater chain. If they were, you would see Disney movie theaters just as frequently as you do Regals or AMCs. One of the only exceptions to this rule is IFC Center, which was purchased by AMC Networks (the TV company, not the theater chain) in 2005. AMC Networks also owns IFC Films, an independent film studio that has produced films like The Death of Stalin and Personal Shopper. IFC Center shows theatrical runs of all IFC Films’ releases, so why is that allowed? Well, AMC seems to have skirted the antitrust ruling due to the fact that they are primarily a television studio. They also positioned IFC Center as an extension of the AMC-owned IFC television channel rather than an extension of their film studio of the same name. Over the last thirteen years, IFC Center has remained a West Village fixture, screening independent films from many different studios, not just IFC Films. But IFC Films’ impact on the film market is tiny compared to the market-dominating force of Netflix. So what would happen if Netflix tried to do the same thing? They wouldn’t settle for just one theater, or even one in every city. When Netflix does anything, they do it big.
​
Only time will tell if Netflix will or even can own their own theater chain, but it would be a game changer if they did. Having a film in theaters raises its legitimacy, and with Netflix making large-scale deals with some of the world’s hottest directors, they will need to keep opening in theaters. The next few years will see Netflix premiere original films from Martin Scorsese, Michael Bay, Guillermo del Toro, and the Duplass Brothers among so many others. With such high-profile collaborators, many of whom are known to be “film purists,” Netflix can’t get away with releasing them as exclusively on streaming. If Alfonso Cuarón gets a theatrical release, you bet Scorsese and Bay are already negotiating to get the same. Netflix allows its filmmakers an amount of creative freedom that most studios can’t provide, but they won’t be able to snag those big names without theatrical releases. So in five years, when you walk across 42nd Street, will you see a Netflix Cineplex next to the brightly advertised AMC and Regal theaters? Will your Netflix subscription include a $10 add-on for their theatrical releases? I don’t know. But I would bet they give it a try.

I believe it is possible to empathize with the Academy’s woes while still being critical of their attempt at a solution.

It is no secret that the Oscars’ ratings have been steadily declining for a number of years, and this is not the Academy’s first attempt at a solution. The push from five Best Picture nominees to ten was meant to include more popular films and pull more people to the broadcast. But even that drew criticism, as some believed it lessened the prestige of the night’s biggest category. And in the end, the ratings declined anyway. The Academy’s latest changes come amidst pressure from ABC regarding their ratings. Because in today’s world, ratings are everything. And if you can’t get people watching, you don’t matter.
Now, I have to make it clear that I don’t even agree with this way of thinking. The quality of the awards and the Academy itself should not be based on television ratings, and the fact that they have to alter their standards and structure to account for that is sad. Yet, in an effort to combat poor ratings, the Academy has decided to implement three changes to their regular program. In their words:

The details on the new Popular Film category are sparse, but we can safely assume it is meant to draw more viewers by giving attention to blockbusters like Black Panther or whatever other Disney megahit makes a billion dollars. Academy snobs tend to get riled up when these kinds of films are mentioned because they are not “Best Picture material,” and maybe they’re right. Not every blockbuster deserves a Best Picture nomination. I’m not even sure Black Panther does. But does that mean they need to give it a consolation prize? It’s basically “the best movie that people actually saw” award. Is the Academy so afraid of the backlash that will come if they don’t nominate hits like Black Panther, or are they just hoping the millions who saw the film will also tune in if it’s guaranteed a nom.
The earlier airdate is not a big deal for now, though it may mean a shortened “Oscar season” with different deadlines later on.
The ambiguous “three-hour telecast” is perha
ps the most worrisome of all the changes. Sure, the Popular Film award sounds like something you’d see Vin Diesel present at the MTV Movie Awards, but the shortening of the broadcast is much more drastic. The Academy has specified that this telecast will result from the removal of certain awards from the live show, with them instead to be presented during the commercial breaks. These “less interesting” awards will likely consist of the technical categories such as Sound Mixing and Editing, Film Editing and maybe even Production Design.

There is a lot to dissect about these changes and what they mean, how long they’ll last and whether they’ll even affect the ratings. But after just one day since the news broke, here are my main three concerns:

1. The removal of certain categories from the live broadcast minimizes the hard work of nominees in categories whose industries are already underrepresented in the public eye. You may not care who wins Best Costume Design, but you know who does? Mark Bridges, who won it this year for Phantom Thread. He and his colleagues and people who love fashion and costumes care. And they about two minutes of a three and a half hour broadcast to celebrate themselves, and why shouldn’t they?
2. The creation of the Popular Film award could create a more homogeneous Best Picture pool, as blockbuster and genre films will be pushed towards the new category as a sort of “consolation prize.” It implies that something popular can’t be the best, and something that’s the best can’t be popular. It’s an award that tells fans of popular movies that they’re taste is less refined. It’s an addition that is attempting to bring people into the Oscar family, while in reality it is alienating them for liking a certain brand of film.
3. The creation of the Popular Film award undermines the artistic merits of really good films that also happen to be popular. Certain blockbuster and genre films that deserve Best Picture nominations may now be pushed aside, as they do not fit the typical (and outdated) Academy mold. Consider if the Popular Film award had been around the last twenty years. Would Get Out, Hidden Figures, Lord of the Rings, Toy Story 3 or Mad Max: Fury Road have gotten Best Picture nominations? Maybe not. Do recent examples such as Hereditary and Black Panther deserve a shot? I think so. The Academy assures us that films can be nominated in both categories, but the Oscar voters are notorious for “spreading the wealth” and often skimp on nominations for a film that they feel has already been represented. That means if a movie like Black Panther gets a Popular Film nomination, many voters will feel like they have given it its due and not consider it for the top prize.

That’s enough rambling for me. Truth be told, the Oscars is my most anticipated day of the year, even more than my birthday or Christmas. It is a day I spend preparing the Besties with my girlfriend and a night I spend watching the awards intently and eating microwaved appetizers with my mom. It’s something I (somewhat irrationally) care a lot about. If you care about it too, let me know what you think of these changes. Could they actually be a good thing for the Oscars? Or is this just a pathetic attempt to keep the masses, who never cared about the Oscars in the first place, interested in the awards? I guess we’ll have to wait until February to see…