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

[The Futurist]

sigh ...

[Barnack]

9 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.

 

Those conversation without defining risk can be a bit empty, everyone not talking about the same thing.

 

What was the chance for any MCU release during that time to do Transcendence type of BO and for Disney to loose all the money invested, yes it was about 0%, even Fantastic Four still did 167m WW.

 

But was there a chance for the movie to do less than your average really copying the formula like Ant-Man and Dr Strange, to be perceived as too nerdy and strange ? Possibly, it is always hard to judge after the hindsight of success (and of the really good first trailer), but Valerian is judged as a crazy investment, how could it have happened, etc... ? While the more expensive Guardian is now perceived has if it was an obvious cash cow ?

Edited May 3, 2017 by Barnack

[Barnack]

Just now, The Futurist said:

sigh ...

 

What ? (is that is referring to my message), what part to you disagree with ?

[titanic2187]

I think disney is the one of the major studio that keep their blockbuster stay as long as possible in theater....

others major studio, are now, cutting down the period for their blockbuster, those BvS, suicide squad, x-men and star trek beyond, were all released for just 12-13 weeks, which was a bit too short...

Frankly speaking, they have nothing much to earn in the cinema too, but, I still hope them to be in limited release mode for couple of weeks more.....

[alisson23]

44 minutes ago, Walt Disney said:

 

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.

 

Source...

[alisson23]

1 hour ago, The Futurist said:

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.

 

 

It was a bad idea for a family movie? Really no. The movie looked stupid and so it was, but I liked still.

[Walt Disney]

1 hour ago, alisson23 said:

 

Source...

 

Type in Avatar into Wikipedia. Read the part that talks about "development."

[The Futurist]

Hindsight is always 20/20.

 

 

[alisson23]

49 minutes ago, Walt Disney said:

 

Type in Avatar into Wikipedia. Read the part that talks about "development."

2006... In time when Disney tried...

 

I was just curious.

 

In tittle's thread there is the word... "currently".What you saidt

is from more than a decade ago. The days of Disney trying something new are gone

Edited May 3, 2017 by alisson23

[Walt Disney]

51 minutes ago, alisson23 said:

2006... In time when Disney tried...

 

I was just curious.

 

In tittle's thread there is the word... "currently".What you saidt

is from more than a decade ago. The days of Disney trying something new are gone

 

You are the one that listed Avatar as an original film that Disney doesnt make. I showed you that Disney tried to make Avatar. You didnt believe me so you asked for proof, which I supplied. Now, You are changing your argument to "Avatar was so long ago." If Avatar was too long ago for you, then you shouldnt have    used it as an example.

Edited May 3, 2017 by Walt Disney

[RandomCat]

55 minutes ago, alisson23 said:

2006... In time when Disney tried...

 

I was just curious.

 

In tittle's thread there is the word... "currently".What you saidt

is from more than a decade ago. The days of Disney trying something new are gone

*coughzootopiacough*

[Barnack]

8 minutes ago, Walt Disney said:

 

You are the one that listed Avatar as an original film that Disney doesnt make. I showed you that Disney tried to make Avatar. You changed your argument to "Avatar was so long ago." If Avatar was too long ago for you, then you shouldnt have    used it as an example.

 

As an original movie Disney would not make anymore, Disney around 2006 distributed Apocalypto in the domestic market (well Gibson pay a fee form them to do so I think, but still)

 

They were releasing 3 to 4 time has many movies around that time versus now, Miramax title, death language violent Mel Gibson affair, etc.....

 

That said not sure I agree that today version of Disney would not made a giant original family movie with franchise potential like Avatar if post-Titanic James Cameron would have come to them with it.

 

Pretty sure that any studio with the money to be able to wait a long time would have watched a Cameron presentation about is next movie with interest.

Edited May 3, 2017 by Barnack

[Walt Disney]

9 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

As an original movie Disney would not make anymore, Disney around 2006 distributed Apocalypto in the domestic market (well Gibson pay a fee form them to do so I think, but still)

 

They were releasing 3 to 4 time has many movies around that time versus now, Miramax title, death language violent Mel Gibson affair, etc.....

 

That said not sure I agree that today version of Disney would not made a giant original family movie with franchise potential like Avatar if post-Titanic James Cameron would have come to them with it.

 

Pretty sure that any studio with the money to be able to wait a long time would have watched a Cameron presentation about is next movie with interest.

 

Again, he listed it as an example. He also asked for the source. When it turns out Disney tried to make that movie, he tried to say it was too long ago. A claim you are also trying to make. I didnt bring Avatar up...the OP did. If it was "too long ago" then he shouldnt have mentioned it in the first place.

Edited May 3, 2017 by Walt Disney

[Barnack]

3 minutes ago, Walt Disney said:

 

Again, he listed it as an example. He also asked for the source. When it turns out Disney tried to make that movie, he tried to say it was too long ago. A claim you are also trying to make. I didnt bring Avatar up...the OP did. If it was "too long ago" then he shouldnt have mentioned it in the first place.

 

I do not follow you at all, no one is talking about the extremely different 2006 Disney, Avatar is a random example of a giant budget original movie that the poster claim Disney now would not do (something a disagree with)

[alisson23]

34 minutes ago, Walt Disney said:

 

You are the one that listed Avatar as an original film that Disney doesnt make. I showed you that Disney tried to make Avatar. You didnt believe me so you asked for proof, which I supplied. Now, You are changing your argument to "Avatar was so long ago." If Avatar was too long ago for you, then you shouldnt have    used it as an example.

 

18 minutes ago, Walt Disney said:

 

Again, he listed it as an example. He also asked for the source. When it turns out Disney tried to make that movie, he tried to say it was too long ago. A claim you are also trying to make. I didnt bring Avatar up...the OP did. If it was "too long ago" then he shouldnt have mentioned it in the first place.

 

"Currently" ever was in tittle

 

They were only examples of the diference between a risk and a big risk. I could to say another Disney movie too like Tomorrowland. I think you not even knows what we were talking about.

 

Edited May 3, 2017 by alisson23

[Walt Disney]

3 hours ago, alisson23 said:

 

 

"Currently" ever was in tittle

 

They were only examples of the diference between a risk and a big risk. I could to say another Disney movie too like Tomorrowland. I think you not even knows what we were talking about.

 

 

You specifically brought up Avatar as an example. If you didn't mean for it to be an example, then why bring it up? What "original" blockbusters are any of the other major studios making right now? At this point, it is getting more difficult to understand what your actual point is.

 

And again you ignore Guardians of the Galaxy, which was a major risk. But maybe you aren't talking about Disney of 2014 either.

Edited May 3, 2017 by Walt Disney

[Walt Disney]

3 hours ago, Barnack said:

 

I do not follow you at all, no one is talking about the extremely different 2006 Disney, Avatar is a random example of a giant budget original movie that the poster claim Disney now would not do (something a disagree with)

 

Disney wasn't different in 2006. They were searching for big franchises. The only difference between then and now is that they have found their big franchises. This is the same thing that they were trying to do in 2006, but they are more successful at it now.

[The Futurist]

As if other studios were doing things differently than Disney ...

 

As if ...

[alisson23]

29 minutes ago, Walt Disney said:

 

You specifically brought up Avatar as an example. If you didn't mean for it to be an example, then why bring it up? What "original" blockbusters are any of the other major studios making right now? At this point, it is getting more difficult to understand what your actual point is.

 

And again you ignore Guardians of the Galaxy, which was a major risk. But maybe you aren't talking about Disney of 2014 either.

You not even read what I was talking about. I was explaining my point about Guardians not being a big risk. Read them before reply, please.

 

Barnack is understanding my point.

Edited May 3, 2017 by alisson23

[Barnack]

1 hour ago, Walt Disney said:

 

Disney wasn't different in 2006

 

Maybe in some intention ? But how is that slate:

 

Spoiler

1	Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest	BV	$423,315,812	4,133	$135,634,554	4,133	7/7	12/7
2	Cars	BV	$244,082,982	3,988	$60,119,509	3,985	6/9	10/19
3	The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause	BV	$84,500,122	3,458	$19,504,038	3,458	11/3	2/8
4	Eight Below	BV	$81,612,565	3,122	$20,188,176	3,066	2/17	6/1
5	Step Up	BV	$65,328,121	2,647	$20,659,573	2,467	8/11	10/19
6	Deja Vu	BV	$64,038,616	3,108	$20,574,802	3,108	11/22	3/1
7	The Shaggy Dog	BV	$61,123,569	3,501	$16,310,058	3,501	3/10	7/27
8	Invincible	BV	$57,806,952	2,987	$17,031,122	2,917	8/25	11/16
9	The Queen	Mira.	$56,441,711	1,850	$122,014	3	9/30	5/17
10	The Guardian	BV	$55,011,732	3,241	$18,006,064	3,241	9/29	1/4
11	The Prestige	BV	$53,089,891	2,305	$14,801,808	2,281	10/20	2/8
12	Apocalypto	BV	$50,866,635	2,465	$15,005,604	2,465	12/8	3/8
13	Glory Road	BV	$42,647,449	2,397	$13,594,734	2,222	1/13	5/11
14	The Wild	BV	$37,384,046	2,854	$9,684,809	2,854	4/14	8/17
15	Stick It	BV	$26,910,736	2,044	$10,803,610	2,038	4/28	7/27
16	Stay Alive	BV	$23,086,480	2,009	$10,726,406	2,009	3/24	6/29
17	Annapolis	BV	$17,127,992	1,607	$7,681,171	1,605	1/27	4/13
18	Roving Mars (IMAX)	BV	$10,407,978	27	$412,337	27	1/27	6/25
19	Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas in 3-D (2006)	BV	$8,700,869	168	$3,277,004	168	10/20	1/4
20	The Night Listener	Mira.	$7,836,393	1,370	$3,554,134	1,367	8/4	9/7
21	Keeping Up with the Steins	Mira.	$4,339,241	163	$653,723	138	5/12	8/3
22	Goal! The Dream Begins	BV	$4,283,255	1,007	$1,921,838	1,007	5/12	8/10
23	Venus	Mira.	$3,347,411	168	$35,604	3	12/21	4/12
24	Tsotsi	Mira.	$2,912,606	122	$76,324	6	2/24	7/13
25	Kinky Boots	Mira.	$1,822,428	127	$77,529	9	4/14	8/3
26	The Heart of the Game	Mira.	$445,374	21	$11,251	3	6/9	9/7
27	Once in a Lifetime	Mira.	$144,601	12	$9,805	1	7/7	9/7
28	Renaissance	Mira.	$70,644	13	$10,800	2	9/22	10/19

 

Not vastly different to that 2017 one 11 year's later:

 

Beauty and the Beast (2017)

BV

$480,525,828

4,210

$481,708,819

99.8%

3/17/17

Born in China

BV

$8,819,843

1,508

$9,252,632

95.3%

4/21/17

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2	Buena Vista	5/5/17
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales	Buena Vista	5/26/17
Cars 3	Buena Vista	6/16/17
Thor: Ragnarok	Buena Vista	11/3/17
Coco	Buena Vista	11/22/17
Star Wars: The Last Jedi	Buena Vista	12/15/17

 

I see some major difference

 

1) Volume it was around 28 new release in 2016 movies (it was often over 40 for Disney) vs only 8 in 2017

 

2) No distribution of indie now, only in house production, in 2006 they were distributing Mel Gibson movies, Miramax Movies and others outside production, they were not releasing those title looking for them to break out and be turned into franchise.

 

3) No more R rated movies.

 

It is a bit hard to believe that people see no difference between the mid 90 to mid 2000 Disney, to the Disney of the last few and few next years.

Disney made a conscious (and their CEO did talk about making that transition), from a large volume diversified slate, to an extremely concentrated one of their own production.