An Aladdin Sequel Is In The Works And It's All Your Fault

Thanks to you, Aladdin is taking one more jump ahead.

Disney’s live-action remake of Aladdin has come and gone like a puff of blue smoke from a lamp.

And if we’re all being honest, it’s actually quite surprising how well it had done for itself despite initial concerns over Will Smith looking blue Shrek. In fact, you all spent over $1 billion at the worldwide box office just to see Aladdin so there’s clearly a lot of love for the remake.

And it’s thanks to that incredible amount of love for the film, talks are underway for a sequel.

Producer Dan Lin spoke to SYFY WIRE about Aladdin and revealed that the film’s success has meant that “early stages” talks are underway for “another movie”.

“People clearly loved the movie and watched it multiple times and we get lots of fan letters and people asking us to make Return [of] Jafar.”

Since things are still in the, well, early stages, there’s not really much to talk about regarding what direction the sequel will take other than it’ll “not be a straight remake of any movie that’s been made before”, figuring out “the best way to go with [the] characters” and trying to getting Guy Ritchie back to direct.

So for those hoping for a live-action remake of Return of Sexy Jafar or The King of Thieves, well maybe don’t hold your breath.

But while Aladdin did stick pretty closely to the animated classic, it did introduce new elements such as Jasmine becoming sultan and the genie falling in love, not to mention how Jafar is technically still in play as a rival genie, so there’s plenty of material to play around with for a sequel.

Now nothing has been officially been given the greenlight yet so let’s not get too excited yet. But let’s be honest here, a film that’s made over $1 billion is almost certainly going to get a sequel because it’s just smart business.

So well done to all you people who went out and saw Aladdin multiple times in the cinema and spent over $1 billion on it, you’re the reason why this (hypothetical) sequel exists.

A Bond Villain Is Up To Play Triton In The Little Mermaid, This Will Not Be A Warm And Fuzzy Fairytale

No, Miss Ariel, I expect you to stay under the sea!

They’re really going all in with casting The Little Mermaid aren’t they?

After rapid fire announcements confirming that Halle Bailey, Harry Styles, Jacob Tremblay, Awkwafina and Melissa McCarthy will be playing (or are in talks to play) Ariel, Prince Eric, Flounder, Scuttle and Ursula respectively, we now have word that King Triton will be played by an actual Bond villain.

According to a scoop by TheDInsider (later confirmed by Variety), Javier Bardem is in talks to play the trident-wielding ruler of Atlantica who is struggling to keep his daughter from contacting the human world.

Just imagine a massive beard, long white locks and a golden crown on this face.

While Disney didn’t cast Idris Elba as Triton as I hoped, Bardem is more than a worthy casting choice because he’s a ridiculously talented chap who can definitely do the stern and intimidating schtick without breaking a sweat.

So here’s where we’re at with The Little Mermaid so far: a curious R&B singer/mermaid feels trapped by her Bond villain father’s strict rules about contacting the human world but she ends up breaking defying him after falling for a One Direction member.

This version of The Little Mermaid doesn’t sound like it will be the warm and fuzzy fairytale everyone expected and I’m totally here for it.

The Lion King's Original Ending Would've Traumatised You As A Kid

It's as if Mufasa's death wasn't traumatic enough,

For an animated kid’s movie, The Lion Kinghad its share of surprisingly disturbing scenes, like Mufasa‘s death at the hands of Scar, the Nazi-esque hyena rally during the “Be Prepared” sequence, and Scar getting eaten alive by hyenas at the end.

It’s actually a wonder that kids weren’t rendered into blubbering messes after watching the film.

Having said that, The Lion King would’ve served up a guaranteed dose of trauma to you and anyone else who watched it had Disney decided to stick to the original, horrific ending.

You know it’s bad when Mufasa’s death is the second most traumatising thing of The Lion King.

In this original ending, everything unfolds roughly same way up until Simba faces off Scar for the final time at the top of a fiery Pride Rock.

After Scar knocks Simba on his back and about to finish him off, Simba manages to push Scar off, causing the older lion to fall off Pride Rock. But Scar isn’t dead as he is still clinging on the edge and begging Simba to save him. Telling Simba that letting him fall will make him no better than his murderous uncle, Simba decides to help.

However, Scar is able to grab hold of Simba’s mane and throw him off the edge to his apparent death. The elder lion manages to climb back up just before the flames engulf him. Since he doesn’t see Simba, who survived the fall thanks to a perfectly placed tree that broke his fall, Scar laughs maniacally in victory just before he gets consumed by fire and burned to death.

This original ending ultimately wasn’t properly completed and only exists in storyboard form, which is for the best because those alone are trauma-inducing enough and seeing the scene fully finished would’ve been way too much to handle.

As for why the original ending was deleted, Disney rightfully thought that it was too horrific for a Disney film and thought it was more interesting (and somehow less graphic) for Scar to be mauled to death by hyenas.

This makes sense on a character level given Scar’s association with the hyenas but the “too horrific for a Disney film” reasoning is an interesting one given how the studio went with graphic deaths for some of its other animated masterpieces.

There’s Ursula being impaled and electrocuted in The Little Mermaid, Frollo falling into molten copper in The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Clayton getting hanged in Tarzan, and Gaston falling to his death in Beauty and the Beast.

So while Scar’s final death worked just fine, his original death wouldn’t have been too out of line when put alongside other Disney Renaissance films.

Perhaps having Scar laughing evilly while being roasted alive was just one step too far for a film that was already dark enough as it is.

And besides, The Lion King had already already used its “traumatise the audience” card with the death of Mufasa and playing it twice would’ve probably scared too many folks away from what was supposed to be an animated film about lions.

Pop-up Channel

Follow Us