Aladdin live action movie | 24 MAY 2019 | Disney | 7th most profitable movie of 2019. Disney does it again!

[Hades]

Disney will run their Star Wars and Live action remakes to the ground....But the next Harry Potter,  Artemis Fowl will save the day.....

[Thomas Beck]

24 minutes ago, jedijake said:

As far as new material goes, it's a catch 22 situation. On one hand, people are complaining about the lack of new stuff. On the other hand, studios have to put up the cash and enough of it to make the new stuff quality material. Meanwhile, pretty much EVERY new IP has failed so studios just keep going with remakes, reboots, and sequels.

 

Not really a problem.

 

When people actually get tired of remakes/reboots/sequels then they will stop supporting them and studios will be forced to make original content instead. Or possibly shut the door and give up.

 

Will probably not happen anytime soon.

 

Edited May 10, 2019 by Thomas Beck

[kaijukurt]

 

I like whats been shown of Will Smith so far.

[Alli]

will looks really committed to this role.

[TMP]

1 minute ago, Alli said:

will looks really committed to this role.

Oscar?

[WittyUsername]

3 minutes ago, TMP said:

Oscar?

The character he played in Sharktale? What about him?

[Eric Atreides]

4 minutes ago, TMP said:

Oscar?

[TMP]

2 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

The character he played in Sharktale? What about him?

Another CGI big willie character. Gonna be a tough race between those two, will smith bird and gemini man will smith for best CGI smith performance

[Alli]

8 minutes ago, TMP said:

Oscar?

maybe a Golden Globe?

Edited May 10, 2019 by Alli

[TMP]

Just now, Alli said:

maybe a Gloden Globe?

RT score prediction? 90%? 100%?

[Alli]

Just now, TMP said:

RT score prediction? 90%? 100%?

65 is my realistic prediction

[Avatree]

5 hours ago, Thomas Beck said:

 

Not really a problem.

 

When people actually get tired of remakes/reboots/sequels then they will stop supporting them and studios will be forced to make original content instead. Or possibly shut the door and give up.

 

Will probably not happen anytime soon.

 

well, that's the thing, ,studios do make new content, and most of the time they end up flopping and losing studios tens of millions / hundreds of millions. Disney specifically - here are all their big budget films that you could describe as "original" or "new" in the past 10 years:

 

A Wrinkle in time - FLOP

Nutcracker - FLOP

the BFG - FLOP

the finest hours - FLOP

tomorrowland - FLOP

into the woods - HIT

lone ranger - FLOP

john carter of mars - FLOP

lincoln - HIT

sorcerers apprentice - FLOP

 

Now i'm not saying disney cant be blamed for these films doing badly, but just on a correlation level.... can you blame disney for preferring to spend their money on guaranteed money makers?

[WittyUsername]

59 minutes ago, Avatree said:

well, that's the thing, ,studios do make new content, and most of the time they end up flopping and losing studios tens of millions / hundreds of millions. Disney specifically - here are all their big budget films that you could describe as "original" or "new" in the past 10 years:

 

A Wrinkle in time - FLOP

Nutcracker - FLOP

the BFG - FLOP

the finest hours - FLOP

tomorrowland - FLOP

into the woods - HIT

lone ranger - FLOP

john carter of mars - FLOP

lincoln - HIT

sorcerers apprentice - FLOP

 

Now i'm not saying disney cant be blamed for these films doing badly, but just on a correlation level.... can you blame disney for preferring to spend their money on guaranteed money makers?

A Wrinkle in Time, The BFG, John Carter, and The Lone Ranger are not original films. Those are based on pre-existing IPs. Tomorrowland was also technically based on a theme park ride, but I guess it’s debatable whether or not that matters.

[CaptainJackSparrow]

@WittyUsername 

 

Here, we usually refer to a movie being original as in “never been done on film before”, regardless of whether it is based on a novel or television show. 

 

 

(sorry if that sounds condescending, please feel free to counterpoint) 

Edited May 10, 2019 by CaptainJackSparrow

[WittyUsername]

4 minutes ago, CaptainJackSparrow said:

@WittyUsername 

 

Here, we usually refer to a movie being original as in “never been done on film before”, regardless of whether it is based on a novel or television show. 

 

 

(sorry if that sounds condescending, please feel free to counterpoint) 

As far as The Lone Ranger is concerned, there have been films based on the character before. Still, I guess if that’s the definition you’re using, then fair enough. 

[jedijake]

There have always been and always will be original films not based on anything. They are almost always Indie or otherwise smaller budget films making small box office dents.

 

But even the bigger "original" films have always been based on books, other works, etc. Star Wars was based on several and GL did a great job at combining stories such as Wizard of Oz, King Arthur, and Flash Gordon. Avatar took from Dances with Wolves and Pocahontas.  It's taking ideas and putting them together in interesting ways. 

 

How many successful blockbusters have not ever been based on something that came before? Even back in the 1930's, Gone with the Wind and Wizard of Oz were based on books.

 

If Disney (or any other studio) stops making money from remakes AND cannot get a decent hit from an original/based on book film, THEN they are in trouble.

Edited May 10, 2019 by jedijake

[Barnack]

2 hours ago, Avatree said:

,studios do make new content,

Yes and all successful on going one had a first entry not necessarily that long ago.

 

I think one possible distinction from that past with the growing delta in average box office and "safeness" is the different in production budget between new content and more proven one growing.

 

Back in the days, Independence Day, Jurassic Park, titanic, Avatar, John Carter  could had the biggest budget of the year.

 

Now a new content (say with a 100m that go over budget during production to get closer to 150), have to compete with sequels with 300-400m budget and a world marketing already establish partner deal that can be really hard to compete with.

 

Back then, the year a Batman was out, it was hard for others to be the summer movie of the year on all the cereal box and everywhere, but the other year like say in 1996, Independance Day and Twister had the room to be what was promoted everywhere and had the biggest marketing/production budget/spectacle of what was released, now good luck if you want to make a big movie that compete even just remotely in the Jurassic Park/Marvel/Fast&Furious category and those budget, same go for a spy movie audience will compare you and can choose the 300m James Bond instead.

[Barnack]

1 hour ago, jedijake said:

How many successful blockbusters have not ever been based on something that came before? Even back in the 1930's, Gone with the Wind and Wizard of Oz were based on books.

 

King Kong (jungle exploration was a genre too), Godzilla, E.T, Back to the Future, Ghostbuster, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, American Graffiti, Sixth Sense, Rocky, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Top Gun. Depend how far one go, The Matrix (plato and others inspiration obviously but would still go), Inception, Gravity, 

 

 

.

 

I think it is safe to say that the relevant metric for a spectator is much more, did I have seen it before than was it ever put into a work before. and in the sense the list get longer and would include Star Wars

Edited May 10, 2019 by Barnack

[jedijake]

Well that's a good point about new materials having to compete with sequels and established material. Those latter properties are going to dominate the marketing and they are not going to suddenly vanish from the hottest times of the year (summer and holidays). Thus, for the slow rising, sleeper films that take a while to simmer but become the "new" thing, they almost have to be released at odd times of the year. October, January, March, etc seem to be when those movies WOULD flourish the most but with more and more movies becoming spread out through the year, the more difficult those become. And again, when people complain that movies like Wrinkle in TIme, Ready to Play, Valerian, Mortal Engines, etc, don't become smash hits, ask yourselves whether these films were given the budgets needed to even stand a chance to become smash hits. Are studios willing to fork over THAT much money in hopes that a film will become the next Star Wars, ET, Matrix, or Indiana Jones? Cameron ,for one, had the budget for Avatar because of the mulah he made with Titanic and confidence of the studio.

[Alli]

the budgets of these disney flops were pretty big tho