Jump to content
grim22

Aladdin live action movie | 24 MAY 2019 | Disney | Reviews straddling the fresh-rotten line

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, The Futurist said:

Top Gun Maverick is gonna be so dope.

Tom is gonna kick the asses of these evil reds !!!

Go Cruise Missile !

Some things never change and I know for a fact Russia has always been evil.

I read very educated people about this stuff so trust me on this, shit s legit.

i don't think russia is the enemy in the film

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mulder said:

Usually yeah.

Bummer may have to abort the mission on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Alli said:

i don't think russia is the enemy in the film

It IS the enemy, make no mistake about this.

 

  • Astonished 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

aladdin is not screening for critics until 21th.   so disney doesn't really know how they'll react. altho i suppose they did test screenings with the public

Edited by Alli
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a time before POTC that Disney was ONLY an animated studio with a few low budget live actions here and there that weren't expected to do much. Disney put out 1 or 2 films per year that were truly mainstream. Other studios put out much more films. So what did they do?

 

Well POTC came around and gave Disney a nice successful franchise. Then came the christening of the live actions starting with Alice in Wonderland (jumping on the 3D train). But still other than POTC there was nothing new. So they bought Marvel. Then they bought SW. Then they made live action remakes. They'd never settle for a dozen $100 million or lower films. But they are getting there anyway. If Aladdin "fails" this is what the past couple of years looked like without Marvel for their live action stuff:(domestically speaking)

 

Wrinkle in Time: $100 million

Solo: $213 million (nearly 50% lower than expected)

Christopher Robbins: $99 million

Nutcracker: $56 million

Mary Poppins 2: $172 million (expected to be MUCH higher)

Dumbo: $110 million

And sandwiched around BatB we had

POTC5: $162 million

Pete's Dragon: $76 million

And there are more that "failed".

 

Bottom line is that without Marvel and MOST of their SW stuff, Disney really has not made much of a dent in the live action category. And if Aladdin makes less than $200 million (which its continued horrible press would make you think) then it spells even more bad news. Disney is only producing hits (since BatB) from properties they bought rather than their own creative enterprises. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Alli said:

aladdin is not screening for critics until 21th.   so disney doesn't really know how they'll react. altho i suppose they did test screenings

Studios always have a sense of how critics'll respond, usually from early screenings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jedijake said:

There was a time before POTC that Disney was ONLY an animated studio with a few low budget live actions here and there that weren't expected to do much. Disney put out 1 or 2 films per year that were truly mainstream. Other studios put out much more films. So what did they do?

 

Well POTC came around and gave Disney a nice successful franchise. Then came the christening of the live actions starting with Alice in Wonderland (jumping on the 3D train). But still other than POTC there was nothing new. So they bought Marvel. Then they bought SW. Then they made live action remakes. They'd never settle for a dozen $100 million or lower films. But they are getting there anyway. If Aladdin "fails" this is what the past couple of years looked like without Marvel for their live action stuff:(domestically speaking)

 

Wrinkle in Time: $100 million

Solo: $213 million (nearly 50% lower than expected)

Christopher Robbins: $99 million

Nutcracker: $56 million

Mary Poppins 2: $172 million (expected to be MUCH higher)

Dumbo: $110 million

And sandwiched around BatB we had

POTC5: $162 million

Pete's Dragon: $76 million

And there are more that "failed".

 

Bottom line is that without Marvel and MOST of their SW stuff, Disney really has not made much of a dent in the live action category. And if Aladdin makes less than $200 million (which its continued horrible press would make you think) then it spells even more bad news. Disney is only producing hits (since BatB) from properties they bought rather than their own creative enterprises. 

It's because honestly Alan Horn is not a great producer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

do we think guy ritchie really directed this or was it done by committee?  looking at how uninspiring that clip is i'd say it's guy's incompetence at work here

 

it's still a mystery why he was hired. he's not exactly known for his musical talents

Edited by Alli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alli said:

do we think guy ritchie really directed this or was it done by committee?  looking at how uninspiring that clip is i'd say it's guy's incompetence at work here

I feel like it's a horrible mix of both. Guy Ritchie can not do fantasy and I'm fairly sure Disney restrained him more then WB did.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Mulder said:

I feel like it's a horrible mix of both. Guy Ritchie can not do fantasy and I'm fairly sure Disney restrained him more then WB did.

Ritchie s Dudebro aesthetic and approach would have done wonders for Aladdin.

Shame Disney is an evil corporate entity sucking out the life of true artists.

Edited by The Futurist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Alli said:

aladdin is not screening for critics until 21th.   so disney doesn't really know how they'll react. altho i suppose they did test screenings with the public

The movie's U.S. premiere is on the 21st. I'm guessing that's why the embargo is so late (usually the embargo ends at the same time as the premiere).

 

2 minutes ago, Mulder said:

It's because honestly Alan Horn is not a great producer.

He had a great run at WB though, a few hiccups here and there (almost dumping The Hangover cause they had no faith in it until crazy test screenings made them change their mind, although I guess he was ahead of the times there since no studio would greenlight a movie like that today).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, filmlover said:

The movie's U.S. premiere is on the 21st. I'm guessing that's why the embargo is so late (usually the embargo ends at the same time as the premiere).

 

He had a great run at WB though, a few hiccups here and there (almost dumping The Hangover cause they had no faith in it until crazy test screenings made them change their mind, although I guess he was ahead of the times there since no studio would greenlight a movie like that today).

The mostly remakes and not much else initiative at Disney studios has been said by a lot of people to be mostly because of him. Idk it's possibly Bob Iger as well (Iger looooves his franchises alright) but by the things people have said I'm fairly sure it's Alan Horn's choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Mulder said:

The mostly remakes and not much else initiative at Disney studios has been said by a lot of people to be mostly because of him. Idk it's possibly Bob Iger as well (Iger looooves his franchises alright) but by the things people have said I'm fairly sure it's Alan Horn's choice.

Those are the kinds of movies that probably draw in the big name actors the most tbh. It feels like we've had more big name/movie star actors making live-action Disney movies this decade than ever before, usually those would only show up in the animated titles.

Edited by filmlover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guy Ritchie was a gold digger anyway.

#Equality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, filmlover said:

Those are the kinds of movies that probably draw in the big name actors the most tbh. It feels like we've had more big name/movie star actors making live-action Disney movies this decade than ever before, usually those would only show up in the animated titles.

Possibly but with star power dying, I feel like it's more about franchise and nostalgia banking. I mean I can get why but I think the issue is, doing more then one a year like Disney used to do has now caused an incredible amount of burn out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Alli said:

it's still a mystery why he was hired. he's not exactly known for his musical talents

Agreed. I have to wonder why they didn't just stick with Bill Condon after the huge success of Beauty and the Beast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KP1025 said:

Agreed. I have to wonder why they didn't just stick with Bill Condon after the huge success of Beauty and the Beast.

Aladdin is a more action-based project than the other '89-'94 Big 4  titles so they likely wanted someone more established in that genre than a Bill Condon or a Rob Marshall (who is directing The Little Mermaid).

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, filmlover said:

The movie's U.S. premiere is on the 21st. I'm guessing that's why the embargo is so late (usually the embargo ends at the same time as the premiere).

 

He had a great run at WB though, a few hiccups here and there (almost dumping The Hangover cause they had no faith in it until crazy test screenings made them change their mind, although I guess he was ahead of the times there since no studio would greenlight a movie like that today).

in that case why is the premiere so late?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't The little Mermaid sexist ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Mulder said:

It's because honestly Alan Horn is not a great producer.

You mean Alan "Fire James Gunn for 9 months and delay our biggest film of 2020 for no reason" Horn?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • 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.