Disney very much owned the Memorial Day weekend as the live-action remake of their animated classic, Aladdin, was collectively embraced to the tune of approximately $117 million during its opening four days. A huge haul that represents a significant endorsement of the recent trend of Disney remaking their own films.

Indeed, Aladdin took in more money in its opening weekend than the last live-action version of an animated Disney classic, Dumbo, has earned throughout its entire theatrical run since its release in March.

Dumbo’s relatively ho-hum reception (which, it should be noted, has still earned more than $100 million) surely concerned Disney, who are putting many of their eggs in the live-action remake basket. 

Aladdin is the second of three such movies to be released this year, and the fact that the audience has embraced it to the degree that they have bodes extremely well for the next one, The Lion King, which comes out in July.

While few people were doubting The Lion King's ability to pull in the crowds, Aladdin was a slightly trickier proposition, considering how pop-culture specific the original was. Not to mention the late Robin Williams' iconic performance as the reference-spewing genie. Even a star of Will Smith's stature was going to have their work cut out for them getting audiences to put Williams aside. But by letting Smith's own personality shine through, Aladdin appears to have done it.

The most positive narrative takeaway from Aladdin's success is that it proves audiences can embrace a blockbuster with a diverse cast. Mena Massoud, who plays Aladdin, is Egyptian-Canadian, and Naomi Scott (Princess Jasmine) is English-Indian.

A less encouraging narrative takeaway is the commercial endorsement of Disney's tail-eating need to continually strip-mine its own intellectual property. If Disney continues to focus on its own animated library in selecting material to adapt, it will soon run out of material and leave no new stories for future generations. It's a form of creative in-breeding that may produce bountiful box office in the short term, but can only hobble future creative exploration in the long term.

Aladdin's wide success also obscured the debuts of two films with creatively ambitious narratives that deserved a bigger audience:

Brightburn represents the kind of film we should be seeing more of in the superhero blockbuster era — a direct subversion of the genre itself. At its core, Brightburn is the Superman story — alien boy with powers is raised by rural parents — but instead of begin one of Earth’s greatest heroes, the boy is evil.

These kinds of reversals flourish in print, where comic book audiences are hungry for new ways to look at superheroes. I'd hazard a guess that cinematic superhero fans are ready to see their superheroes in a different light as well, and it's sad that Aladdin didn't allow for Brightburn to find more of an audience.

Following the rapturous word of mouth that followed its SXSW premiere, Booksmart has been steadily building a reputation as a whip-smart take on the “wild night” teen film, featuring two girls in the lead roles. Such a film shouldn't stand in contrast to most teen movies, but unfortunately, it does. And Aladdin pretty much stomped all over it.

Which is a real pity as Booksmart is wonderful and deserves to be seen by as many people as possible. The studio had been attempting to build a groundswell of support for the film with a series of college screenings, and everyone who has seen it loves it, but sometimes there just isn't enough room at the multiplex.

In an age when mainstream cinema is acknowledging that certain perspectives go under-represented, it's highly discouraging when a film designed to serve some of those perspectives fails to break through, despite being unabashedly wonderful. Ignore this lesson Hollywood, and keep making more movies like Booksmart.