Disney: Currently the biggest, most powerful, smartest and (??)most safe(??) movie company in the world.

[franfar]

Nuke the thread from orbit tbh

[That One Girl]

1 minute ago, Tele Came Back said:

What's interesting is that the adult demo (and older demo) tends to be underserved these days and there's space there for a studio to target, if they won't so concerned with chasing the attention span of young audiences. 

 

Exactly this.  American Sniper didn't make 350M from nothing.  It was a film that resonated with all demographics of the adult audience.  Disney can easily make an adult targeting film by reviving their Touchstone banner and market it as well as something like American Sniper, and potentially get it to similar or even higher numbers than their main tentpoles.  It's just that they don't even try in this department.

[That One Girl]

3 minutes ago, franfar said:

Nuke the thread from orbit tbh

 

There's debate to be had here, I don't see why it should be stopped.

[alisson23]

8 minutes ago, Tele Came Back said:

@alisson23, continuing this argument in the thread won't bring anything but more grief. Please give the staff the space to review the reported posts. 

I think something should have happened already when he called me an asshole. Moderation edited his post, but nothing more happened because he keeps provoking me. But ok, I will wait.

Thanks for your feedback.

[alisson23]

Ignore my replies to rucaio and tele, please. 

[aabattery]

10 minutes ago, Tele Came Back said:

 

I'm not sure why people continue to equate A24 with Disney. The two are dramatically different companies. With regard to your extended post, this snippet at the top sums up my opinion. Disney is merely the most extreme example of all the major studios. 

 

What's interesting is that the adult demo (and older demo) tends to be underserved these days and there's space there for a studio to target, if they won't so concerned with chasing the attention span of young audiences. 

 

I mentioned A24 since alisson did in their original post.

Edited May 3, 2017 by aabattery

[Dementeleus]

2 minutes ago, alisson23 said:

I think something should have happened already when he called me an asshole. Moderation edited his post, but nothing more happened because he keeps provoking me. But ok, I will wait.

Thanks for your feedback.

 

You're making the assumption nothing will happen. Things do not necessarily happen in an instant, and occasionally happen entirely behind the scenes. In the future, feel free to PM a mod if you have concerns. 

[alisson23]

12 minutes ago, Tele Came Back said:

 

You're making the assumption nothing will happen. Things do not necessarily happen in an instant, and occasionally happen entirely behind the scenes. In the future, feel free to PM a mod if you have concerns. 

Sorry.

Ok, thanks.

Let's move on.

[Ent]

To me the whole original/non original topic is a wrong critic.

 

Studios don't do remakes to please the exact same audience as before, they do remakes to update a classic for a renewed audience.

 

People die, others are born, other are growing out of some material they used to love being younger while others become new fans and receptive to what is for them a totally new material.

 

This is the number one reason why remakes are made, to become the contemporary movie of a new audience who wasn't there when the original or former one was released ...while still trying to engange the former one who will see this with a more critical eye coimparing the two.

 

That's why a new Terminator will be released as soon as James Cameron gets his hands on it...not for me who grew up with the original one but for a younger generation who will make it its contemporary classic.

[cannastop]

33 minutes ago, Tele Came Back said:

What's interesting is that the adult demo (and older demo) tends to be underserved these days and there's space there for a studio to target, if they won't so concerned with chasing the attention span of young audiences.

Maybe that demo in general just isn't looking for movies.

[alisson23]

Someone said here Guardians 1 it was a big risk. Well, every movie is a risk, but I don't think Guardians was a too big risk how people says.

Superheroes movies it was big already back to 2013 and I'm sure Iron man 3 gave them more confidence about the next superheroes movies. Even if Guardians "flopped", it would make somenthing like 400m WW and to me, Marvel wasn't expecting a big profit in first movie. I believe they were expecting in the second and the next ones (after put them in a Avengers movie) how happened with Thor and Captain America. Guardians it was a necessary and inevitable movie for the brand because they need some new characters. They didn't have too much to loose. So, it was a risk, but not big at all. The big risk Marvel had it was Iron Man back to 2008. This is my opinion.

[YM!]

3 minutes ago, alisson23 said:

Someone said here Guardians 1 it was a big risk. Well, every movie is a risk, but I don't think Guardians was a too big risk how people says.

Superheroes movies it was big already back to 2013 and I'm sure Iron man 3 gave them more confidence about the next superheroes movies. Even if Guardians "flopped", it would make somenthing like 400m WW and to me, Marvel wasn't expecting a big profit in first movie. I believe they were expecting in the second and the next ones (after put them in a Avengers movie) how happened with Thor and Captain America. Guardians it was a necessary and inevitable movie for the brand because they need some new characters. They didn't have too much to loose. So, it was a risk, but not big at all. The big risk Marvel had it was Iron Man back to 2008. This is my opinion.

A movie with an actor who's biggest movie was Lego Movie, with a talking raccoon and a Pokémon space tree wasn't a risk. One of their arguably biggest things besides Avengers for the MCU as terms of world building. 

[Barnack]

11 minutes ago, cannastop said:

Maybe that demo in general just isn't looking for movies.

 

Even thought the by capita attendance by age is lower showing they are not going to movies as much because the western world is getting older adult are now by far the biggest audience and a growing one. The 50 or more audience was bigger than the 25-39 last year, bigger than the 17 or less.

 

27% of the ticket were sold to non adult in 2016 according to the mpaa, while 39% were to 40 year's old or more. And because the annual attendance is really low, there is a lot of room for growth in that demography.

 

http://www.mpaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/MPAA-Theatrical-Market-Statistics-2016_Final.pdf

 

The 50 year's old+ market had a nice progression since 2012.

 

Has for A24 and stuff like that doing what they do really well it is true, but A24 will not do a drama with 80-100 days of shoot and 60m or more budget like Gone Girl or at least I do not have an example of them or small player like that doing os, there is more than enough movie for adults in numbers most movie released in a year are r-rated, it is those with a high quality of production and release that are getting rarer, that is why big studios getting in the game or not can change what we are able to see.

[alisson23]

1 minute ago, YourMother said:

A movie with an actor who's biggest movie was Lego Movie, with a talking raccoon and a Pokémon space tree wasn't a risk. One of their arguably biggest things besides Avengers for the MCU as terms of world building. 

Don't get me wrong, I liked GotG, but when I watched the movie, it didn't look a big risk. It was Iron Man and his family in space. A big risk it was Iron Man. Marvel could to loose everything. Without the success of IM, we never would have seen these movies. If Guardians flopped, they only would move on with the universe.

[Ent]

26 minutes ago, alisson23 said:

Someone said here Guardians 1 it was a big risk. Well, every movie is a risk, but I don't think Guardians was a too big risk how people says.

Superheroes movies it was big already back to 2013 and I'm sure Iron man 3 gave them more confidence about the next superheroes movies. Even if Guardians "flopped", it would make somenthing like 400m WW and to me, Marvel wasn't expecting a big profit in first movie. I believe they were expecting in the second and the next ones (after put them in a Avengers movie) how happened with Thor and Captain America. Guardians it was a necessary and inevitable movie for the brand because they need some new characters. They didn't have too much to loose. So, it was a risk, but not big at all. The big risk Marvel had it was Iron Man back to 2008. This is my opinion.

 

Guardians who was released in 2014 was a big risk and considered as such at the time.

 

True, since Avengers, superhero movies have been propelled into another stratosphere in terms of BO, but until Guardians, all of them were either remakes of A list characters or sequels of tested movies...and even then, it didn't stop some major flops like the Fantastic Four or some domestic major underperformance like Apocalypse.

 

Guardians was the very first original superhero movie featuring obscur characters post Avengers and the first one based on a cosmic world. 

 

It was a first test to prove that a totally original property with basicly no major fanbase could succeed where other original SH movies  (eg : Jonah Hex, Green Lantern, ect) have failed constantly before.

Edited May 3, 2017 by Ent

[alisson23]

8 minutes ago, Ent said:

 

Guardians who was released in 2014 was a big risk and considered as such at the time.

 

True, since Avengers, superhero movies have been propelled into another stratosphere in terms of BO, but until Guardians, all of them were either remakes of A list characters or sequels of tested movies...and even then, it didn't stop some major flops like the Fantastic Four or some domestic major underperformance like Apocalypse.

 

Guardians was the very first original superhero movie featuring obscur characters post Avengers and the first one based on a cosmic world. 

 

It was a first test to prove that a totally original property with basicly no major fanbase could succeed where other original SH movies  (eg : Jonah Hex, Green Lantern, ect) have failed constantly before.

 

True, but Marvel had too little to loose after the success of Iron Man 1, 2, 3, Capitain America 1 and 2, Thor 1 and 2 and Avengers. 8 success they had already. But I agree in parts with you.

[Mulder]

"Guardians wasn't a big risk"

Oh it's historical revisionism time on BOT again. Never forget when Baumer ((Sorry to call you out man but you're the only prediction who I could remember off the top of my head)) thought it wouldn't make 100 million total. And he wasn't alone on here. A lot of people ((Including me)) thought Guardians could be Marvel's first flop.

[robertman2]

Guardians was a huge risk. Saying otherwise is just plain wrong

[Barnack]

6 minutes ago, alisson23 said:

 

True, but Marvel had too little to loose after the success of Iron Man 1, 2, 3, Capitain America 1 and 2, Thor 1 and 2 and Avengers. 8 success they had already. But I agree in parts with you.

 

The more you have the more you have too loose, that why the pressure was so high to play it safe with Force Awaken, the cost of opportunity, the difference in total revenue between a badly received one, prequel level and what it will do now is giant.

 

There was no risk to flop on Force Awaken, very small on Guardian to actually loose money or any release post Avengers with how strong, but a bad one would do much less and possibly hurt the brand. There still a vast difference in result between what would be a relative failure and success, Pixar brand did feel a bit invincible until A Good dinosaur too.

 

The risk is not of the same nature has a Jupiter Ascending, but the cost of opportunity in a bad release is giant. Guardian was certainly on the risky side of the MCU release, versus obviously the sequels but also those who follow a clearer superhero journey like Ant-Man/Dr Strange. A risk they paid off and one they will need and will take from time to time.

Edited May 3, 2017 by Barnack

[alisson23]

3 minutes ago, Mulder said:

"Guardians wasn't a big risk"

Oh it's historical revisionism time on BOT again. Never forget when Baumer ((Sorry to call you out man but you're the only prediction who I could remember off the top of my head)) thought it wouldn't make 100 million total. And he wasn't alone on here. A lot of people ((Including me)) thought Guardians could be Marvel's first flop.

Yeah, it was a risk like every movie, but not tooo big, I guess. It was almost Iron man in space.

 

http://www2.boxoffice.com/featured_stories/2014-06-long-range-forecast-guardians-of-the-galaxy