Jump to content

El Squibbonator

Free Account+
  • Posts

    396
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by El Squibbonator

  1. No, there's no way it's going to be that bad. At the very least it won't have that hideous motion-capture animation. The premise sounds kind of cute, and if they can follow it up with a good hook (something that Lightyear and Elemental both sorely lacked) it might do OK.
  2. TBH, Elemental never really felt quite right to me as a Pixar movie. Its premise-- a society of four types of creatures who are segregated but will inevitably learn the error of their ways-- is pretty boilerplate, which is atypical for Pixar, who are generally known for their out-of-the box stories and interesting combinations of ideas. I know the subtitle of this thread, "What if elements have feelings?" is meant as a joke, but it's actually pretty close to the truth as far as I can tell. That joke gets told about Pixar movies a lot, but in most cases it's not really accurate, because they always try to tell an interesting and unique story with that premise. But with Elemental, I'm not seeing that. The whole thing looks like it was designed by a committee, and certainly not up to the standards Pixar has set in the past, even with recent movies like Turning Red and Luca. "Generic", I believe, is the word. The point is, Elemental doesn't have any major hook beyond its generic premise, and that's going to work against it at the box-office. Pixar has always sort of been the "loose cannon" of Disney's subsidiaries, more innovative and less likely than the others to toe the company line. And I sort of feel like what we're seeing now, with the movies following the departure of John Lasseter, is that the Disney higher-ups aren't quite sure what to do with Pixar. Hence why so many of their upcoming movies are sequels. That's really the only guaranteed way for them to make money in theaters anymore.
  3. A few reasons: 1. The animation director for this movie said that it wouldn't be a "kids' movie" in an interview a while back. 2. Sony has announced its commitment in the past to making PG-13 and R-rated animated movies. 3. The trailers felt more action-heavy and less comedic than those for the first movie-- more akin to a live-action superhero movie. Now, I never thought it was likely that it was going to be PG-13, but I did say it had a higher chance of having such a rating than most other animated movies out there.
  4. Maybe they don't want to give the critics photosensitive seizures. I mean, did you see the flashing lights in those trailers?
  5. I've actually been thinking the same thing. Normally I'd say that's a ridiculous idea, but I feel like the chances of it happening here are, if not high, then at least higher than zero.
  6. Even stuff based on books is becoming less common than it used to be. The most recent big book-based franchise I can think of is Game of Thrones, and that was adapted into a TV show instead of a series of movies. We're long past the days of Harry Potter, The Hunger Games, and Twilight, when every bestselling novel was guaranteed a movie adaptation. Maybe you could count Dune and The Meg, but I'm hesitant to consider those "franchises" since they currently consist of a single film each.
  7. While I generally agree, I doubt the Harry Potter HBO Max series is a good example. The franchise doesn't really have the impact it did 15 or 20 years ago.
  8. I suppose it's possible, but the stars would have to align in a lot of really unlikely ways. You'd need a director with a well-established reputation, a movie with enough of an all-new draw to make audiences want to see it in theaters as opposed to on a streaming service, a studio willing to spend lots of money marketing an unproven property, and a release date that's away from any meaningful competition. And it has to be all of those things. So the real question is, will we ever see a movie that meets all of the above criteria?
  9. My gut feeling agrees, but at the same time, I feel like there's a non-zero chance it could be PG-13. The animation director has talked about how this movie is supposedly "not a kids' movie" (whatever that's supposed to mean), and the trailers seem less comedic than those for the first movie.
  10. It's a shame this movie flopped, because IMHO there aren't nearly enough dinosaur-related movies that aren't part of the Jurassic Park franchise.
  11. Fossil Record has announced that it will be making an animated adaptation of John Brosnan's fantasy comedy novel Damned and Fancy. The release date is unknown as of now.
  12. I'm probably going to watch it regardless, if only because I hope it's successful so studios realize that movies about dinosaurs don't need to have Jurassic Park or Jurassic World in their titles.
  13. Despite everything working against it, I desperately want this movie to be successful. It feels like any live-action dinosaur movie that isn't part of the Jurassic Park franchise is doomed to failure, and this is the first such movie we've had in almost a decade (the last one was Walking with Dinosaurs: The Movie in 2013). Is the dinosaur movie genre doomed outside of Jurassic Park sequels, or will we ever see another successful original dinosaur movie?
  14. I meant "the same as the original Shazam", not "the same as Black Adam". But in hindsight even that might have been a bit too high. $260M worldwide is probably a realistic ceiling, assuming a $75 million worldwide opening. Maybe $300M at a stretch .
  15. At the very least, Shazam's budget is a lot lower than Black Adam's ($120 million compared to $200 million+), so even if it ends up performing the same, it might not necessarily be a major flop.
  16. So, I just found this at a site called DisneyDining. Is there any truth to it? I remember Bob Iger saying in December that he didn't plan on making any further acquisitions.
  17. Fossil Record has revealed more information about its mysterious upcoming movie Fishergirls. A synopsis was shared with the magazine: "On the tropical, lush world of Lyr, Gray is a girl with a dream. Feeling stifled by the traditions of her culture, she's determined to perform the sacred rite of passage that has been forbidden to females for centuries, constructing a ship and exploring the treacherous seas beyond the islands they call home. Together with her friends Leaf and Atoll, she's ready to do anything to prove that she can be the woman she says she is. But danger lurks in these unknown waters-- the maps say 'here be dragons', and for good reason, too. . ." In addition to the synopsis, preliminary concept artwork of the three main characters was revealed. They were shown to be humanoid fox-like creatures, drawn in a watercolor style by San Francisco artist Chris Wayan, who was also announced to be the film's script writer. "Fishergirls will be less a typical animated film, and more a moving watercolor painting," Fossil Record CEO Mark Pierce says. "This is has been tried only a few times before, and the phenomenon of seeing this on the big screen is really something else. You'll feel like you're not just watching a movie-- you're actually seeing a painting come to life in front of you. This is an artistic movie in every sense of the word." Much is still unknown about Fishergirls, including the director, the budget, the intended rating, and the release date.
  18. We really need to get the actuals done. It's January already.
  19. I don't know. They've been putting their animated stuff on streaming earlier and earlier over the past couple years-- just look at what happened to Encanto and Raya and the Last Dragon.
  20. Or why not call it "The WB"? You know, in homage to their old TV network, the one with Michigan J. Frog as the mascot? They could even bring back the Kids' WB brand if the service needs a separate children's section. IT WAS STARING THEM RIGHT IN THE FACE!
  21. As for Strange World and Lightyear, it's important to remember that much of Disney's money comes from right-wing Americans. The company always branded itself on its adherence to being "family-friendly" in a way that other movie studios weren't, which is why whenever Disney tries to make anything that goes against that image there's a segment of people who get angry at them for "betraying their principles". The fact is, much as I hate to admit it, Disney's values, as expressed both by its CEOs and its movies, have always tended to be implicitly conservative. And that goes all the way back to the company's founder. Disney today is struggling with this legacy. On the one hand, if it is to stay relevant in the 21st century, it will have to embrace values it didn't before. On the other hand, there is the risk that that this could be rejected by their biggest established consumer segment-- soccer moms with 2.5 kids and SUVs.
  22. Yes, that was definitely a factor. But whenever I point that out, people seem to be in denial. It's not just a matter of "animated sci-fi adventure movies never do well", because, as I've pointed out, some of them have been successful.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.