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

[Mulder]

1 minute ago, alisson23 said:

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

And I could show you a bunch of people who thought it'd flop. It was not a guaranteed hit.

[alisson23]

3 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

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.

Exactly. It's great to read your posts. You ever have a lot to add to the topic. Thanks.

[kowhite]

Disney is doing amazing.

 

Disney is kinda boring. 

 

Yeah.

[Premium George]

I don't have any problem with disney (other than copyright laws) but I hope other studios doesn't become like them for the sake of diversity. Universal is doing great with small.and blockbuster films, WB is doing small and non-brand expensive movies and getting few doses of valerian type of movies is great too. Ofcourse there are always nolans, camerons and spielbergs.

[Goffe]

Is it a big risk when you, , under an already solidified brand, engineer your product to have an appeal as broad as possible, copying a formula that proved successful many times within the franchise? I think not. 

Edited May 3, 2017 by Goffe

[alisson23]

2 hours ago, Goffe said:

Is it a big risk when you, under an already solidified brand, engineer your product to have an appeal as broad as possible, copying a formula that proved successful many times within the franchise? I think not.

Exactly, it was a risk, like every movie, but not a big one. People here argue the brand wasn't strong in 2014, but Marvel had 8 success before GotG (2 movies over $1 bi).

Saying Guardians it was a big risk is the same as saying Fantastic Beasts it was a big risk. It wasn't.

Big risk it was Jupiter Ascending, Titanic, Iron Man, Cloud Atlas, Matrix, Avatar... These movies needed to prove something. GotG or FB hadn't to prove nothing, because their brand had proved the formula already (both with 8 movies). This is my POV.

[The Futurist]

Come back to me when you have a 400m$ investment over your shoulders.

 

Then, we ll talk about what is a risk and what is not.

 

Thx a lot.

 

[alisson23]

11 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

Come back to me when you have a 400m$ investment over your shoulders.

 

Then, we ll talk about what is a risk and what is not.

 

Thx a lot.

 

EVERY move is a risk. "Oh God, a company which has a market value of $169 bi put $0,4 bi of investiment in a big brand with 8 success and 2 movies over $1bi..." Big risk it had. So bold Disney is.

[grey ghost]

Being a studio executive has never been easier.

 

You can't expect them to go back to the days were they were forced to bet the farm on movies like Ishtar.

 

 

https://youtu.be/1-j3GUrEOnU

 

 

 

Edited May 3, 2017 by grey ghost

[The Futurist]

You all talk like, because these movies are from brands, you reduce them to procucts (and everything negative that is associated with the word, in your mind) whereas these movies are made by passionate people that work literally 24/7 to get them done, with 100 artistic and creative decisions to make, PER DAY, for 2 or 3 years.

 

Like there is a difference in doing Her or Manchester by the Sea and doing Guardians of the Galaxy  Vol 2 or Fast 8.

 

BIG SPOILER ! OPEN AT YOUR OWN RISK !!!

 

Spoiler

There s not.

 

 

Edited May 3, 2017 by The Futurist

[grey ghost]

Don't worry about other studios copying Disney.

 

They couldn't even if they tried.

 

Sinister 6 and a Bumblebee spinoff. 

[Walt Disney]

12 hours 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.

 

GOTG was a massive risk. If you were here back then, you would have seen the majority  of people thinking it would fail. Even BKB did not think it would succeed. The concept of a movie with a talking raccoon and a tree appealing to the general audience was not one that most people thought could succeed.

 

Lets not rewrite history. There are old threads here that tell the story about the lack if confidence in GOTG.

[RandomCat]

16 minutes ago, Walt Disney said:

 

GOTG was a massive risk. If you were here back then, you would have seen the majority  of people thinking it would fail. Even BKB did not think it would succeed. The concept of a movie with a talking raccoon and a tree appealing to the general audience was not one that most people thought could succeed.

 

Lets not rewrite history. There are old threads here that tell the story about the lack if confidence in GOTG.

 

I wasn't here, but I remember the feeling in my comic store was the movie was going to do badly, that there wasn't an inherent fanbase to bouy the film. Hell, most the people who go to see comic films religiously were talking about skipping it. It wasn't a movie that had a lot of support going into it before the that first teaser hit.

 

[Premium George]

1 hour ago, grey ghost said:

Don't worry about other studios copying Disney.

 

They couldn't even if they tried.

 

Sinister 6 and a Bumblebee spinoff. 

Well disney tried to be like warner bros in 2000's.

Disney dominated only for one year while wb is still to have a bad year in last 20 years.

Universal is doing great ( including bumblebee spinoff).

Other studios are trying to be like this three.

[AniNate]

I will say this community doesn't help this cause. Everyone's only interested in talking about blockbusters / franchises here.

[Jessie]

4 hours ago, alisson23 said:

Exactly, it was a risk, like every movie, but not a big one. People here argue the brand wasn't strong in 2014, but Marvel had 8 success before GotG (2 movies over $1 bi).

Saying Guardians it was a big risk is the same as saying Fantastic Beasts it was a big risk. It wasn't.

Big risk it was Jupiter Ascending, Titanic, Iron Man, Cloud Atlas, Matrix, Avatar... These movies needed to prove something. GotG or FB hadn't to prove nothing, because their brand had proved the formula already (both with 8 movies). This is my POV.

 

It was a risk. Most people thought it would flop so its funny to see everyone all of a sudden pretending they knew it would be big.

 

Had john carter been a big hit people would also be stating it wasn't a risk. GoTG had no stars and it had no connection to earth, it was just as risky as Jupiter Ascending, they just made it a good movie

[The Futurist]

I vividly remember mocking everything about the first Guardians when it was announced , I knew nothing about the comics and thought making a movie with a talking tree was the stupidest idea in the world and that the film woud flop hard.

 

After seeing Vol. 2, joke s on me I suppose.

 

 

[Walt Disney]

5 hours ago, alisson23 said:

 

Big risk it was Jupiter Ascending, Titanic, Iron Man, Cloud Atlas, Matrix, Avatar... These movies needed to prove something. 

 

Interesting that you mention Avatar as a risk. At one point, Fox decided they didnt want to make Avatar because the budget was so high. Disney wanted to step in and make Avatar. When Fox found out that Disney was interested, they decided they would make the movie after all.

[grey ghost]

59 minutes ago, tribefan695 said:

I will say this community doesn't help this cause. Everyone's only interested in talking about blockbusters / franchises here.

 

It's the same with the general audience.

 

Disney is dominating because they embraced the biggest fanboy properties and the public can't get enough.

[Barnack]

3 hours ago, The Futurist said:

Like there is a difference in doing Her or Manchester by the Sea and doing Guardians of the Galaxy  Vol 2 or Fast 8.

 

Depend what you mean by "in doing", if you are the writers/directors there is certainly a big difference.

 

The toys and marketing department didn't go over your script and ordered change, the product placement department didn't do some of the shot composition, you had final cut and didn't had any change forced on you by exec/brain trust or by the result of a test screening.

 

You didn't had to setup and have a manufactured ending that make sure spin and/or sequel are possible.

 

If you mean that it is not less work that is obvious, it is much more work to do a Fast 7 than Her or Manchester by the Sea, if you mean that it is not easier that is also true, but it is different. Add Suicide Squad to that list of movie and see if that statement still hold up...