10 Years Ago, Disney Struck Box Office Gold With A Remake Of An Animated Classic

(Welcome to Tales from the Box Office, our column that examines box office miracles, disasters, and everything in between, as well as what we can learn from them.)

"Alan called me into his office one day and said, 'Here's the thing. It's Disney's 'Cinderella.' It needs to be the definitive 'Cinderella' for generations to come, so if you need to spend a little more, spend it, to make sure it's one for the time capsule.' " Those are the words of Disney's then-production president Sean Bailey speaking about the studio's 2015 live-action "Cinderella" to Variety in 2016. The "Alan" he's referring to was Disney chairman Alan Horn. Needless to say, the studio viewed this as an important project.

Whether or not it's the definitive version of "Cinderella" is certainly up for debate. Disney's 1950 animated version of "Cinderella" is still very well regarded, particularly amongst fans of classic animation. But it's also very of its time in some ways, which is why Horn felt there was an opportunity to give future generations a version of the classic fairy tale to call their own. Horn and Disney's motivations were not exactly altruistic, however, as this was also a very promising commercial venture. What they wound up with was a big hit with even bigger implications for one of Hollywood's biggest studios — implications that are still being felt a full decade later.

In this week's Tales from the Box Office, we're looking back at Disney's live-action "Cinderella" remake 10 years later. We'll go over how the film came to be, how it evolved into a cornerstone of an emerging strategy at Disney, what happened when the movie hit theaters, what happened in the aftermath of its (very successful) release, and what lessons we can learn from it in a modern context. Let's dig in, shall we?

"Cinderella" (2015) is, broadly speaking, pretty faithful to the story that has endured for centuries (one that was originally known as "Cendrillon" by Charles Perrault before Walt Disney immortalized it in 1950). The live-action reimagining centers on Ella (Lily James), a young woman whose merchant father remarries after her mother dies. In an attempt to support her loving father, Ella winds up at the mercy of her cruel new family led by Lady Tremaine (Cate Blanchett). That is, until one fateful night changes everything.

Disney very quickly tried to capitalize on the unexpected $1 billion box office success that was Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" in 2010. Mind you, this was when it was exceedingly rare for movies to cross the $1 billion mark. At the time, BUrton's film was just the sixth one to ever cross that milestone. Naturally, that meant more remakes of animated Disney classics, with "Cinderella" being among the first to enter development during this period.

While acclaimed filmmaker and music video director Mark Romanek ("One Hour Photo," "Never Let Me Go") was initially attached to helm the movie, he ultimately departed over creative differences. This, in turn, paved the way for Kenneth Branagh, who helped turn "Thor" into a hit in 2011, to take over. All the while, writer Chris Weitz was along for the ride. Speaking with /Film in 2015, Weitz explained how the movie evolved from Romanek to Branagh:

"'Cinderella' is one of the most familiar stories in the world. So, in many crucial ways, it stays the same and it's about kind of tonality. Mark's version probably would have been more like a Grimm's Fairy Tale. And Ken was very keen to make something which clearly wore its heart on its sleeve."

Naturally, the script went through quite a few revisions before the story that made it to screen was settled on. Save for what was on the page, casting was of the utmost importance here. Cate Blanchett was the first to sign on in 2012. In a nice turn of fortune for Disney, Blanchett would win the Best Actress Oscar for "Blue Jasmine" in 2014, making her an even bigger name come time for this movie's release.

For the title role, just about every actor who could have been considered was considered. Emma Watson, who eventually played Belle in "Beauty and the Beast," turned down the role. Meanwhile, Alicia Vikander ("Ex Machina"), Saoirse Ronan ("Brooklyn"), Margot Robbie ("The Wolf of Wall Street"), and Imogen Poots ("Fright Night"), among others, were all considered. Ultimately, though, it was Lily James, of "Downton Abbey" fame, who landed the coveted part.

James, as it were, had originally gone in to read for the step-sister Anastasia, who was ultimately played by Holliday Grainger ("Anna Karenina"). While there, the casting director essentially altered the course of her career. As James explained to Time in 2015:

"I remember practicing the night before and I put on my most garish pink-orange tie-dye jumper. I was really up for playing a character where you didn't have to worry about being pretty, and you could just be more quirky and comical. But then when I was there, the casting director said, 'You should just read for Ella while you're here,' and I did. And it just felt right."

After a months-long process, James was announced as the lead in the film. The rest of the cast was filled out with the likes of Helena Bonham Carter (Fairy Godmother), Stellan Skarsgård (Grand Duke), Sophie McShera (Drisella), and Richard Madden (Prince Charming), who was coming hot off of "Game of Thrones." It was quite the ensemble.

Alan Horn's directive of "spend it" came to pass as the film carried a $95 million production budget, along with a very healthy marketing spend. Even so, that was quite a bit lower than other comparable blockbusters of the day. (Burton's "Alice" had cost at least $150 million five years earlier.) Branagh also delivered the goods, with his "heart on its sleeve" interpretation of the tale earning very solid reviews. "By reminding us why we love this story so much in the first place, Disney manages to make the old feel fresh again," as Angie Han wrote for /Film in her review in 2015.

Bolstered by solid buzz and a blanket marketing effort, "Cinderella" hit theaters on March 13, 2015. It easily topped the charts on opening weekend, taking in $67.8 million. The film also benefited greatly from a lack of direct competition, with the Liam Neeson actioner "Run All Night" ($11 million) serving as that weekend's other big new release. It's part of the benefit of opening in March for the spring break crowd (as opposed to the overly crammed summer).

While the film had to surrender the crown to "The Divergent Series: Insurgent" the following weekend, it still held up well, pulling in another $34.9 million domestically. It ultimately stayed in the top five for five straight weekends, setting it up to become a major success. Disney's live-action remake train was truly off to the races.

"Cinderella" eventually finished its run with $201.1 million domestically to go with $341.2 million internationally for a grand total of $542.3 million worldwide. While that was nowhere near the $1 billion mark, the movie did make back 5.7 times its production budget. It also set up Disney to make more than $7 billion at the box office in the ensuing years with similar remakes.

Looking at the numbers, "Cinderella" didn't even crack the top 10 globally in 2015. But again, the box office is all relative. 2015 releases like "Spectre," "Star Wars: Episode VII — The Force Awakens," and "Avengers: Age of Ultron" were remarkably more expensive, while out of control budgets helped lead to a banner year for box office bombs in 2015. Bang for buck, it's hard to do better in the realm of blockbuster filmmaking than this movie.

More than that, it proved that Disney's strategy of remaking classics from its animation library wasn't a one-off success story. Yes, "Maleficent" also did quite well for itself in 2014, but that was more of a spin-off. This was another classic title going from animation to live-action. In the years that followed, Disney did this time and time again with stellar results. 2016's "The Jungle Book" ($966 million), 2017's "Beauty and the Beast" ($1.26 billion), 2019's "Aladdin" ($1 billion), and 2019's "The Lion King" ($1.66 billion) were all massively successful.

The only live-action Disney remake that misfired financially during this period was "Pete's Dragon" ($143 million), but even that one was saved by its relatively modest $65 million budget. This wild success all culminated in 2019 when Disney made a record $11.1 billion globally, with seven movies grossing more than $1 billion around the world. The live-action remakes were a huge part of that equation.

The strategy is still going strong today, with a slew of remarks currently in development. Disney is even developing a "Prince Charming" movie starring Chris Hemsworth. Admittedly, some of these remakes have been maligned by critics (like "Dumbo"), while others have been tremendously expensive (as was the case with "The Little Mermaid," which cost $240 million to produce). Overall, though, the net positive for the company is impossible to deny. Much of that success is built on the back of "Cinderella," whether the movie gets the credit for that or not.

10 years removed from this movie's release and the tone regarding these live-action remakes has changed quite a bit, at least if the internet is to be believed. Seemingly any time a new one is announced, there is online eye-rolling and comments that equate to "This doesn't need to exist" or "Hollywood is out of original ideas." Even other studios are doing it now, with a live-action "How to Train Your Dragon" hitting theaters this summer.

At the end of the day, studios tend to follow the money. This is the movie business, after all. Disney only continues to churn out these remakes because the hits far outnumber the misses. Just look at "Mufasa: The Lion King," which legged out to $713 million worldwide after a seemingly disastrous opening weekend. All of the online complaining in the world only matters if people stop watching these movies.

There's also something to be said about the shockingly reasonable budget for "Cinderella." Even adjusted for inflation, the film would cost around $130 million to make today. In the pandemic era, $200 million is far more common. Making this movie for less allowed Disney to lower the ceiling for success. It's easier said than done, but doing that more frequently with bigger movies is a no-brainer in an increasingly uncertain future for cinema.

Lastly, it's worth looking for a moment at Branagh as a director. He doesn't get quite enough credit for taking tough blockbuster gigs and making them work. "Thor" was arguably the toughest Phase 1 MCU movie to crack, but he managed to do so. "Cinderella" was another big task, yet he made a critically praised, commercial hit that helped ensure Disney's future. He even turned his Agatha Christie Hercule Poirot adaptations into qualified hits. I'm kindly suggesting we take a moment to put some respect on Branagh's name in this particular realm, as a filmmaker. He's earned it.